Loading...
CEB Minutes 02/23/2007 R February 23, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida February 23, 2007 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Community Development and Environmental Services Bldg, Room 609/610, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Sheri Barnett Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Richard Kraenbring Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Charles Martin Jerry Morgan George Ponte ALSO PRESENT: Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney Patti Petrulli, Code Enforcement Supervisor Bendisa Madill, Operations Coordinator Page 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA Date: February 23, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Location: Collier County Government Center, Third Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida Horseshoe drive, Naples, FI. 34104 NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLIER COUNTY NOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THIS RECORD. 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 15, 2006 & January 25, 2007 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MOTIONS B. STIPULATIONS C. HEARINGS 1. BCC vs. Ann & Jerome Guidish 2. BCC vs. Mark Brecher 3. BCC YS. Mark Btecher 4. BCC YS. Mark Brecher 5. BCC YS. CaRri International Inc. 6. BCC YS. JH Prettyman 7. BCC YS. Marene Santilli 8. BCC YS. Ronald and Barbara Grego 9. BCC YS. Fred Gaston and Russell Gaston 10. BCC YS. Bi-Rite Company, Inc. 11. BCC YS. Bradley Residential LLC. CEB 2007-01 CEB 2007-04 CEB 2007-05 CEB 2007-06 CEB 2007-10 CEB 2007-11 CEB 2007-12 CEB 2007-13 CEB 2007-14 CEB 2007-15 CEB 2007-16 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Reduction of Fines/Liens B. Request for Imposition of Fines/Liens 1. BCC YS. Phil & Susan Loyd 2. BCC YS. Lisa Marie Hodge 3. BCC YS. Worthwhile Deyelopment 4. BCC YS. Russell & Kaja Risteen 5. BCC YS. Roberto Escareno & Maria D. Resendiz Lopez CEB 2006-13 CEB 2006-41 CEB 2006-42 CEB 2006-43 CEB 2006-44 6. BCC YS. Jesus & Laura Perez 7. BCC YS. EJ Properties LLC, Leonardo D. Starke RA 8. BCC YS. Calexico 9. BCC YS. Elinord Pierre 10. BCC YS. Terry Hernandez & Brian Fults 6. NEW BUSINESS - 7. REPORTS- 8. COMMENTS- 9. NEXT MEETING DATE - March 22, 2007 10. ADJOURN CEB 2006-45 CEB 2006-46 CEB 2006-47 CEB 2006-53 CEB 2006-66 February 23, 2007 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Good morning. At this time I'd like to call the Collier County Code Enforcement Board to order. Note, any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And I apologize for the slight delay this morning. I'd also like to remind everybody we're going to try to follow Roberts Rules of Order. In order for the court reporter to be able to get a verbatim record you'll need to be notified to speak by the board chair. May I have roll call, please. MS. MARKU: George Ponte? MR. PONTE: George Ponte, here. MS. MARKU: Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Gerald Lefebvre, here. MS. MARKU: Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. MARKU: Sheri Barnett? MS. BARNETT: Here. MS. MARKU: Richard Kraenbring? MR. KRAENBRING: Here. MS. MARKU: Justin DeWitte? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Not present. MS. MARKU: Kenneth Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. MARKU: Charles Martin? MR. MARTIN: Here. MS. MARKU: Lionel L'Esperance? Page 2 February 23, 2007 MR. L'ESPERANCE: Lionel L'Esperance is present. MR. MORGAN: Forgot one. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, did we forget you? I'm sorry. Jerry Morgan, you're on there. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Looks like we have a full board today, so alternates, you're allowed to have input but not vote. We cannot approve the January 25th meeting as no one received them. But I would like to have a motion to approve the November 15th. MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the November 15th meeting. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Move to public hearings. Do we have any changes on the agenda? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, I do have changes for the agenda. Item number 4.A.1, I believe we're removing the request for continuance. Is that correct? And -- however, we've got several stipulations. Item 4.C.2, 3 and 4 are all stipulated. Item 4.C.6 is also a stipulation. 4.C.10 and 4.C.11 will all be stipulations. And then there's a request to hear the imposition of fine for Board of County Commissioners versus Philip and Susan Loyd directly after those stipulations. The attorney representing those respondents has a court case in Fort Myers, so if we can do that after-- Page 3 February 23, 2007 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do we want to just take him first to help him out? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think he's in agreement to have the stipulation, since those individuals have agreed to stipulate, have them heard first. That shouldn't go too long. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. May I have a motion to approve the amended agenda. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So that means, let's see, you said one IS -- MS. ARNOLD: No, it's two, three and four. Board of County Commissioners versus Mark Brecher. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And are the respondents available and -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Are they here? They're outside. MS. ARNOLD: Are they out in the hall? We could take the next one, six, which is the Board of County Commissioners versus J .H. Prettyman. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Are they here? Would you like to come forward, please. MS. ARNOLD: And the investigator on that is Chris Ambach. Page 4 February 23, 2007 (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. AMBACH: Good morning, board members. For the record, Investigator Christopher Ambach, A-M-B-A-C-H. MS. ARNOLD: I just need to mention for the board that we do have a request for public speakers on this particular item. And we probably should swear the public as well. And we'll hear them after the stipulation. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Can we go ahead and have her come up to be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. AMBACH: Good morning. Mr. Prettyman, the respondent and the county have agreed on the stipulation agreement, CEB Case No. 2007-11. The violations as noted: Sections 04-41 as amended, Section 10.02.06.B.1.A, 10.02.06.B.1.D, 1 0.02.06.B.1.D.I, Section 104.1.3.5, and Florida Building Codes, 2004 edition, Section 105.1 and 105.7. Described as seawall construction and site work without first obtaining all required permits and posting said permits on-site. The respondent has agreed to pay the operational costs in the amount $400.16 incurred in the prosecution of this case. To abate all violations by obtaining all required permits for construction of seawall, including all inspections and a certificate of completion, or a demolition permit and return seawall to its original condition within 60 days, and post all required permits on-site, or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator, myself, when the violation has been abated in order to conduct the final inspection to confirm abatement. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Sir, do you agree to the stipulation? MR. PRETTYMAN: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: At this time, I'm going to ask -- I'm Page 5 February 23, 2007 going to assume the other party, if they would like to have a moment to speak. MS. WOLOK: Good morning. Mimi Wolok. I'm an attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Birdwell. They live right next door to the property on which the violation is occurring. Mr. Birdwell conducted a survey recently, and I'd like to put that up, if I could. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Is this evidentiary? MS. WOLLOCH: Yes, it is, absolutely. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Would you like to submit that as -- in evidence then? MS. WOLLOCH: Yes, I would. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: May I have a motion to accept her -- MR. DEAN: Motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MS. WOLLOCH: So we -- we are asking the board to -- instead of asking them to get a permit, to go ahead and request that this fill and seawall be removed. What the respondent did do is he is on the waterfront and he just filled in and created a new seawall and moved his dock six feet out into the water. My clients own the corner property, and they got a survey at the end of the canal. They have many feet of waterfront. Page 6 February 23, 2007 And the survey shows that -- although it's hard to see on the screen, that there's an actual trespass and encroachment on the property. And we have photographs, and I guess we need a motion to also see the photographs? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: You can include that as all part of your packet, if you'd like. MS. WOLOK: Okay. The first photograph, if I could turn it, on the top, shows exactly what the respondent has done where -- my client's property is in the foreground on that top picture, and he filled in that last about six feet. And just before my client's property, it juts back almost to the original. And the actual trespass occurs -- and I have another picture that better shows the actual trespass in that ending of that seawall. But my client says that there's been more fill added to this property since the violation occurred, even though that was against orders of the Code Enforcement Board. Here is the other picture showing the actual trespass. But the important thing about this particular picture that's on the screen now is that even if that whole thing doesn't actually trespass on my client's property, they are effectively stopped from using that six feet of their waterfront property because of this violation. Thank you, Michelle. That one -- that is the actual trespass of .7 feet. I did fax all this information to the Code Enforcement Board through the code enforcement division. I have fax confirmation. For some reason it wasn't received. I also sent it with color photos, thank you, Michelle, and so I have that for the board today. And we would request that the board today resolve that the only way to make the community whole and the Birdwells whole is to request that Mr. Prettyman remove that seawall and the fill instead of going through the permit process and getting a slap on the wrist. And Mr. Birdwell would like to say one minute of testimony. Page 7 February 23, 2007 MR. BIRDWELL: Thank you. My wife was born on Chokoloskee. Her family's been there for hundreds of years. Anyway, it took her over a half a century to get to the point to where she could have a little place on the water. And as you all know the premium of the waterfront property. Anyway, through his actions he has effectively torn down the old seawall that was there when we bought -- and it had an old dock next to that that was there when we bought -- completely removed that, pushed it all further out in the canal. And when we stand on the corner of the property, we don't see a nice straight seawall anymore, regardless if it's stone or concrete or whatever. We see this thing that protrudes six feet out in the canal and then goes up to the end of his property and then juts back to the old existing seawall, with a dock protruding past that further into the canal. So in essence the whole corner of our property has been removed from us to be able to use. And it's just so frustrating that he doesn't understand what he's done, and he thinks that the rules are not to be applied to him or something, I don't know. But when we wanted a dock, we called and they said no, you've got to get a structure on there before you can apply for a dock permit, and da, da, da, da, da. We said well, that's fine. That's the law, we'll do it. So we're abiding by the law and I just wish that everybody else had to, too. And that's about all I have to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I have a question for the code enforcement officer. MR. AMBACH: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: In regards to this, would he be able to obtain a permit with the fact that he has gone out into the canal and extended the property boundary? MR. AMBACH: He would have to get DEP approval. There are Page 8 February 23, 2007 several permits he has to obtain through DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers, so on, so forth. They have to do what they have to do on their end. He needs to submit all that information and send that to the county. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Is that feasibly able to be done in 60 days? MR. AMBACH: Probably would take a little bit more than that. I'm not really too sure where he is right now. I know he's hired an engineer to work on this issue. MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Prettyman is here, so -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: How far along are you in the process? MR. PRETTYMAN: Well, Davidson Engineering, they're in the back there, he could tell you more about it than I could, if it's okay for him to testify. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Would they like to come forward, please, and we'll have to swear him in as well. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. JOHNSON: My name is Russ, R-U-S-S, Johnson. J-O-H-N-S-O-N. I'm a professional engineer, State of Florida. With regard to the complaint and the areas Mr. Prettyman has engaged us, we have done considerable research, we've hired a surveyor to attest to the position of the existing seawall and to identify the location of the proposed seawall. Weare preparing the permits, applications for the DEP. At this time we are prepared to have these submitted within 30 days, and expect that we would hear a response from the DEP within 30 days also. So we would expect that this would be able to go forward and it would be an amenable, we think, resolution that would be acceptable. And with regard to the claimed encroachment, we really don't want to talk too much about that. There is aerial photographs from Collier County that speak well of the existing conditions, and I think the client, his intention is to bring the wall back to the original position Page 9 February 23, 2007 as far as its location, which should be acceptable to everyone. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So then that encroachment would no longer exist, basically? MR. JOHNSON: Based upon the prior application locations of the main wall itself, and as interpreted by the permitting requirements. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Anybody else have any further questions? (No response.) MR. LEFEBVRE: I've got a question. Is there a structure currently on the property? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, there is. There is a replacement dock that sits approximately about a foot waterward of the old position. It is less in square footage area than the original dock. MR. LEFEBVRE: What I mean by structure is a living structure. MR. AMBACH: No, there is not. MR. JOHNSON: There is no living structure. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is that a requirement prior to having a seawall built? MS. ARNOLD: Not a seawall, but normally the dock, there is a requirement for a principal structure before the dock is placed on it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. At this time, I'll entertain a motion or discussion to accept the stipulated agreement or make some adjustments. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is there a dock being built here also? MR. AMBACH: Yes, yes. It was started. It's not been worked on for several months right now, but -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. Because you just told me that a dock's not allowed without a primary structure, living structure on the property, correct? Page 10 February 23, 2007 MR. AMBACH: Michelle, could you -- MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, the case is against the seawall construction. The case is not against the dock. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: For comment to the board, I'd like to just add that it sounds to me like any permitting issues would be resolved prior to them issuing the permit. If DEP finds that there's any violation of the waterway, I think that would be resolved. If it can't be resolved, then they'll make them take the dock out and I think both parties will be satisfied. MR. PONTE: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I do too. Any other comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chairman. The cases two, three and four, the respondent I believe is present and the investigator is also here. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, so shall we call them forward, Page 11 February 23, 2007 please, and have them all sworn in. They're not all on the same property, Michelle, but do we want to hear them all at the same time? MS. ARNOLD: I think we may want to, you know. She'll tell you the violations as they pertain to each property. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And then you'll have to take separate votes for each -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Stipulated agreement. MS. ARNOLD: -- stipulated agreement. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: For the record, Jen Waldron, environmental specialist, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB Case No. 2007-04. We have signed a stipulation agreement with Mr. Brecher. The violations noted in this case are of Section 2003-37, as amended, Sections 5 and 6, and are described as vegetation and limerock placed within a 30- foot easement, known as the Harvey Canal and Travelway, without obtaining the proper permits. The respondent has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $442.22 incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by the following: Per request from the Collier County road and bridge department, the respondent must remove all ficus plants placed in the easement and fill in any holes resulting from plant removal within 15 days of this agreement. The limerock is requested to be removed, but not required. If the limerock is removed, the area must be maintained in perpetuity. The respondent must notify code enforcement that the violation's been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. If the violation of the ficus placed in the easement is not abated within 15 days, fines of $200 per day will be imposed for every day Page 12 February 23, 2007 that the violation remains. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: If I understand this correctly, he does not have to remove the limerock, it's just -- MS. WALDRON: That's correct. It's stated in there just so that it's clear that the limerock must be maintained if it's not removed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Sir, do you understand the stipulations and agree to that? MR. BRECHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I have any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Then do I hear a motion in regards to this stipulation? MR. PONTE: I make a motion that we accept the stipulation. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, next. MS. WALDRON: The next is CEB Case No. 2007-05. Violations are that of Sections 2003-37, as amended, Sections 5 and 6, and 04-41, as amended, 03.05.01(B), and are described as vegetation and limerock placed within a 30- foot easement, known as the Harvey Canal and Travelway, without obtaining the proper permits. Also vegetation was removed over a majority of the property Page 13 February 23, 2007 without obtaining the proper permits. The respondent has agreed to pay all operational costs in the amount of $428.56 incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by the following: Any offending material placed in the easement must be addressed per request from the Collier County road and bridge department. Respondent must remove all ficus plants placed in the easement and fill in any holes resulting from plant removal within 15 days of this agreement. The limerock is requested to be removed but not required. If limerock is removed, the area must be maintained in perpetuity. The respondent must obtain a wetland determination from the State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection within 60 days of this agreement. Upon receipt of the wetland determination from DEP, a vegetation removal permit must be obtained within 30 days from Collier County environmental services. Upon receipt of the vegetation removal permit, a fence permit must be obtained within 15 days. Once a fence permit is obtained, respondent must obtain an after-the- fact vegetation removal permit from Collier County Code Enforcement within five days of fence permit issuance. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. If the violation of ficus placed in the easement is not abated within 15 days, fines of $200 per day will be imposed for every day that the violation remains. If the vegetation removal permit is not obtained within 30 days of the DEP wetland determination, fines of $200 per day will be imposed for every day that the violation remains. If a fence permit is not obtained within 15 days of obtaining a vegetation removal permit, fines of $200 per day will be imposed for every day that the violation remains. If an after-the-fact vegetation removal permit is not obtained Page 14 February 23,2007 within five days of the fence permit issuance, fines of $200 a day will be imposed for every day that the violation remains. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I've got a question. On your charging documents, the only thing that you state as the description of violation was the vegetation was removed over a majority of the property without obtaining permits. There's nothing stated there in regards to the limerock or any of that other information. You have it on the preceding document, but you do not have it on this one. MS. WALDRON: It is on here. It's on number two, the violations of Section 2003-37. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I was looking at the statement of violation, and all it says is description of violation, vegetation was removed over the majority of the property without obtaining proper permits. MR. KELLY: And there was information about a fence as well that are not in the charging documents. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I don't see it. 2007-04 it's there, but not on 2007-05. MS. ARNOLD: The charging document is the Notice of Violation on your Page 3. And in that it includes the vegetation and the limerock, the fact the vegetation was placed in the easement and limerock. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does it say anything about the fence? MS. WALDRON: The fence is -- what happened in this case is Mr. Brecher decided to put horses and cows on that piece of property. So in order for him to get the clearing permit, he has to have the fence around there in order to put the animals in. That's what the fence permit is for, not for the easement. MS. ARNOLD: This is the part of the corrective action that we're asking him to do with the fence. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Sir, are you in agreement with the stipulated agreement? Page 15 February 23, 2007 MR. BRECHER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I have any other questions from the board or the attorney? MR. KLA TZKOW: Just for the record, with respect to the limestone, the county at this point in time is not requiring removal of the limestone. We want to take a wait and see attitude to see whether the runoff is there or what it might do to this particular easement. That does not mean that the county is waiving its rights in the future to come back and to require removal of the limestone. It's just a wait and see attitude at this point in time to see whether that will be necessary. We just don't know yet. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Are you aware of that, sir? MR. BRECHER: No. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you're on notice. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Maybe we need to put that into the stipulation then? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, staff wasn't made aware of that. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think there's a need to put it in the stipulation. I just wanted for the record, that at this point in time we don't view this as an issue, but in light of what may happen in the future as far as what the result of this might be as far as runoff goes, whatever at that point in time, this has to go. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I think it might be okay without it in the stipulation, because there is language in there that they have to maintain it in perpetuity. And if there is a problem in the future, that would be a part of the maintenance requirement. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jean, help? MS. RAWSON: You don't have to put it in the stipulation. We can enter the stipulation. By the way, I hope this is in writing. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it is. MS. RAWSON: Good. You know, he put them on notice, but I don't think it has to be in a stipulation. The stipulation is as it is. Page 16 February 23, 2007 And back to your question earlier, one interesting thing about this particular case is there's an addendum to the notice of violations. And they are very detailed. So that's covered. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? MR. KRAENBRING: Is this an aerial photograph of the second property that we're looking at, or are we still with the same property? MS. WALDRON: No, it's the property to the south of this. It's right here. MR. KELLY: I'd just like to point out that on this particular stipulated agreement there's quite a few time-sensitive events, and it seems like that same recurring theme that we keep approaching was wait on county, and if there was a delay on county's part, the respondent of course is going to be responsible for $200 a day in those events. And I just wanted to make sure that the respondent understood that there's a lot of time sensitive material in here. And this is your opportunity now to tell us if at any point you feel you're going to need more time we can, of course, change this agreement right now, rather than coming back to us later with fines against your property. We've seen it before, and I just wanted to make that point to you now that if 15 days isn't enough time to remove the vegetation or to restore it, tell us now. MR. BRECHER: I believe the time frame is all right. MR. KELLY: Very well. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, then I'll close the public part of this meeting and -- MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion that we accept the stipulation as read. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 1 7 February 23, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Could you please give a copy of that to Jean so she could have it. MS. WALDRON: Sure. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Then we'll move on to the next. MS. WALDRON: The next stipulation is in reference to Case No. 2007-06. The violations are that of Sections 04-41, as amended, 03.05.01(B) and 03.05.07, and are described as portions of the preserve on Palm Royale property to have been cleared of native vegetation without obtaining the proper permits. The respondent has agreed to pay operational costs in the amount of $444.22 incurred in the prosecution of this case and to abate all violations by the following: The respondent must prepare a mitigation plan within 30 days from this agreement which meets the criteria as stated in 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06.E.3. The mitigation plan shall be prepared by a person who meets or exceeds the credentials specified in Section 10.02.02.A.3. The respondent is required to establish a monitoring program that would determine the 80 percent survivability of species of the plants used in the mitigation effort over a five-year period with replacement required to maintain the 80 percent minimum annually. A minimum of five reports will be submitted by the respondent. Reports will be due at one-year intervals. All vegetation must be planted in accordance with the PUD for this property. Page 18 February 23, 2007 Upon approval of the mitigation plan, plants must be installed in accordance with the plan within 15 days. The respondent must notify Code Enforcement that the violation has been abated and request the investigator to come out and perform a site inspection. If the mitigation plan is not submitted within 30 days of this agreement, fines of $200 per day will be imposed for each day that the violation remains. If the plants are not installed according to mitigation plan, $200 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. MS. ARNOLD: And I just wanted to point out that in this particular case the respondent has already paid the operational costs. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Mr. Brecher, do you agree to the stipulation? MR. BRECHER: Yes. There's one part I noticed in there that said according to the PUD that was on it. There's another issue with the PUD, I believe, that's going on now. And I don't want to get tied into that. MS. WALDRON: No. I do know about that. And that's not -- that's not your issue to deal with, that's the cemetery's issue to deal with. He's speaking about buffer issues that the cemetery is having problems with. And those are being taken care of, because the cemetery has not been CO'd yet. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do you agree to the stipulation notice? MR. BRECHER: Yes. MR. PONTE: I have a question for the investigator. Why did you select the time frame that you have? One is 15 days, the mitigation plan within 30 days. MS. WALDRON: This is what the code recommends. It's stated in the code, in the Land Development Code. MR. PONTE: It seems to me that in other cases, it has taken Page 19 February 23, 2007 quite a while to settle mitigation plans. MS. WALDRON: He's already hired an environmental consultant and they're working on it. Usually once they get out and do their site visit they can usually have the plan done within a few days. MR. PONTE: The short scope of his required performance on this case leaves me a little uncomfortable, because he has so much to do in terms of the other cases that we know about that he's working on. And the time frame is very short. So I'm not quite sure that I can agree that the tight time frame here is very equitable. MS. WALDRON: I know when Mr. Brecher and I discussed it last week, he had no problem with the time frames that we discussed in the stipulation, so -- MR. PONTE: You're comfortable with it, sir? MR. BRECHER: Yes. Mainly because it's not a large area we're talking about, maybe between five and 10 large plants that we see. And the environmental person said maybe some grass. So I don't think it's a big project. It's probably -- I'm guessing it's maybe a 100- foot by 40- foot area. So I think it's a small enough fix that it shouldn't take that long. MS. ARNOLD: The area that we're talking about is kind of hatched in your -- in the aerial that you're seeing. That's the area in question. MS. WALDRON: And it's not that entire area, it's just a section of that. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. BRECHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: If not, then I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept the stipulated agreement as presented by the county. Page 20 February 23, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MR. BRECHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Now we're going to jump to the request of imposition of fines for Phil and Susan Loyd. We have other things, but they asked to go ahead -- MS. ARNOLD: No, we have two more stipulations. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Oh, do we? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we've got 10 and 11. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I messed up, I'm sorry. BCC vs. Bi-Rite Company, 2007-15. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The investigator on that is Kitchell Snow. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. CEB Case No. 2007-15. By the way, good morning, board. The violations are erection of a sign without proper county permits. We had entered a stipulation in this. Stipulation reads as follows: One, pay operational costs for the amount of 395.86 incurred in the prosecution of this case, which has been paid. Number two, abate all violations by obtain a sign permit for Page 21 February 23, 2007 unpermitted signs or remove said sign within 14 days of this hearing, or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed for each day the violation remains. Upon submittal of a full and sufficient sign permit, obtain all subsequent inspections through certificate of completion within 60 days, or a fine of $150 a day will be imposed until said sign receives certificate of completion and is removed. And for the record, they do have an application in with sign review right now. I don't feel that they will have any problem getting this done within the specified time that we've given them. MR. WHITE: Nor do I. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And are you in agreement with the stipulation? MR. WHITE: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And you're the project manager, you said? MR. WHITE: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And you have authorization to accept the stipulated agreement? MR. WHITE: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: If not, I'll close the public meeting part and look for a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept -- MR. PONTE: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 22 February 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) MR. SNOW: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: You're welcome. And now we'll go to Bradley Residential, LLC. MS. MARKU: Investigator for the county, Carmelo Gomez. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. GOMEZ: For the record, Carmelo Gomez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-16. We entered into a stipulation. Stipulation reads as follows: That the CEB order the respondent to pay all operational costs in the prosecution of this case, which is $427.30, within 30 days of this stipulation. Number two, to submit application for Collier County permits within 30 days of to day's hearing, failing which there will be a fine imposed of $200 a day until abated. Number three, obtain inspections and certificate of occupancy within 60 days of issuance of the permit. Failure which there will be a fine imposed of $200 per day until violation is abated. And number four, that the respondent must notify the code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to make a correction for the record. The operational costs are actually 429.30. MR. GOMEZ: Yes, that's correct. I'm sorry. This handwriting is kind of shaky. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Was Mr. Bradley here earlier? MR. GOMEZ: Yes, Mr. Bradley and his attorney were present. They signed the stipulation. They were asked to stay to make their Page 23 February 23, 2007 comments, and I don't know, but they left. MS. RAWSON: Could you tell me who the attorney was? MR. GOMEZ: Ma'am, I'm sorry, I don't remember his name. And he did not sign. All he did was witness that -- or told Mr. Wheeler where to sign. MS. ARNOLD: I think it was Gary Ralph. MS. RAWSON: Okay. I'll send him a copy of the order. MR. GOMEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, do we have any questions? MR. KELLY: If they're unable to obtain the permit for the existing structure, is there any language to demolish it? MR. GOMEZ: No, there hasn't been. But we can speak about that at a later time. This case has been going on since January of 2006. So they're well aware. As a matter of fact, they hired an architect and an engineer last week. MR. KELLY: Thank you. MR. GOMEZ: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other comments from the board? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: If not, I'll close the public hearing part and ask for a motion. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept the stipulated agreement as presented by the county. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 24 February 23, 2007 Any opposed? (No response.) MR. GOMEZ: Thank you, board members. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Now then, if we have no more stipulated agreements, I will bring up Phil and Susan Loyd, imposition of fines. It is 2006-13. MS. ARNOLD: This is a request for imposition of fines. At your June 22nd, 2006 hearing, you found a violation did exist. In fact, there was a stipulation that was entered into by the county and the respondents. It should -- all the stipulated agreement, as well as the order should be attached in your packet for your review. The respondents are in compliance to date, but have accrued fines in the amount of$7,893.75. The noncompliance -- or the fines accrued between November 21st, 2006 for the order items number three and four, and another between 12/27 for item -- excuse me. Respondents were actually asked to get building permits for the improvements that were made, and they were required to do that no later than November 30th. Permits were obtained and CO'd, I believe, on December 27th. And they were also required to obtain vegetation -- or a mitigation plan, which was done timely, and then plant the vegetation within 15 days after sea turtle nesting season. And they failed to comply with that portion of it. Operational cost was a total of $643.75, which has been paid. MR. KRAENBRING: Michelle, in the packet -- MS. ARNOLD: No, it has not been paid, sorry. MR. KRAENBRING: Michelle, you sent us in the packet and on the document we got today that the fines are different? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, there was a -- the packet that you received previously said $8,893.75. It actually should be less $1,000, because they were including the compliance date, the comply-by date, as well as the date of compliance in that fine amount. So we've Page 25 February 23, 2007 deducted that amount from the original fines dated. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay, thank you. MR. PIRES: Madam Chair, members of the board. Anthony Pires of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, representing the Loyds. I first wanted to thank you for taking me out of order today because of other conflicts with my schedule with the trial I have upcomIng. Secondly, as to the issue of the operational costs, obviously we have no difficulty, we'll pay that right away. And I would like to ask you to waive all of the fines in this case, but honestly the part dealing with the landscape mitigation, that just slipped the schedule. And that's, I think, a thousand dollar component of this fine. And I'll ask you to waive all the fines. That one we'll not argue strenuously for. But the major fine, which was the one regarding the building permit, the construction of all the other facilities, I heard the discussion earlier about dates and stipulations, whether people felt they could comply with it, and quite candidly, when I appeared before you with my clients at the library where we entered into the stipulation, based upon conversations I had with some county staff, as well as the variance that I had in my files, I felt it would be relatively easy, and we felt it would it would be relatively easy to get it through the permit process. We ran into a snag up front getting a contractor, then we ran into problems at the building department -- not the building department per se but other departments of the county that were questioning the base documents that we said supported the opportunity to get a building permit. So there was a question whether it could even apply. And that took about eight days at the outset, where there were e-mails I wasn't receiving copies of. But your code enforcement staff, by the way, they were aggressive, the ones I dealt with were aggressive, competent and professional. And I appreciate the professionalism and the Page 26 February 23, 2007 competency. The aggressiveness, I think, does Collier County well. But in this particular instance, but for Kevin Halesworth providing me copies of e-mails going between other county staff showing how they were trying to stop this process, I wouldn't have been able to -- I didn't know what was going on. Because of that, fortunately I was able then to find out what was going on and then started communicating with Joe Schmitt and Bill Hammond. And then the wheels started to turn in a positive fashion. But that took till about August 17th for that to occur. We started making inquiries August 7th after the contractor was lined up, and for a couple days was playing telephone tag. Had a week of no communications, and then sent an e-mail. Then I received copies from Kevin Halesworth of the other underlying e-mails. And we put that issue to rest on August 17th. And then August 22nd the permit was applied for. And on August 25th it was approved. And the permit was issued September 5th. Then on September 6th the contractor advised -- or the staff of the contractor advised that the permit drawings did not match the footprint. And so there became an issue of revisions going back and forth, quite candidly, between what the contractor had submitted and what actually was on-site. And there's a 20-day lag time in September to October, revised drawings were submitted but no word from the county. And then another 18-day lag time in November between November 27th and December 15th when revised drawings were further submitted November 27th, but heard nothing from the county as of December 15th. But then a final building inspection occurred December 18th, and I have that in the file from the online information. And we didn't know about that. And unfortunately county staff from code enforcement said on December 22nd everything's ready to be CO'd Page 27 February 23, 2007 but there are pending amounts yet to be paid. So the contractor had to find out on Friday before the four-day Christmas holiday what the pending amounts that were due were due. And apparently they're reinspection fees. So after all of that, on December 27th the CO was finally issued. But the final building and final electrical were performed on December 18th. We would submit to you -- and once again setting aside the fine that's being imposed for the landscaping, which is doing quite well, thriving -- but we would request that you not impose a fine for the balance of it, which would be $6,250, because of all the other delays that occurred that we didn't have any participation in, that we didn't know we'd run into difficulties, quite frankly, and I candidly thought that we had the variance, we'd be able to go down there and get the permit application, but it just became much more complicated than I imagined. We'd ask for your good graces and good consideration to waive $6,250 of the fines. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Does the county have a position? MS. ARNOLD: Well, you have a question. MR. KELLY: I was going to ask if Investigator Halesworth is here today. MS. ARNOLD: No, Investigator Halesworth does not work for the county any longer. MR. KELLY: Would you agree that they did work diligently to try to meet the timetable? MS. ARNOLD: Well, I wasn't privy to all of what was going on. And I just was curious, because Mr. Pires indicated that August 17th was the time that they actually got resolution as to all the e-mail correspondence that was going on, but the submittal wasn't until August 22nd. Page 28 February 23,2007 I just was curious why the submittal for applying for the permit took from the time that we signed the stipulation to even that time period. MR. PIRES: It ended up being much more difficult to get a contractor to do an after-the- fact application, because that was part of the process, number one. And a contractor that wasn't totally familiar with the Collier County processes and was getting frustrated and stimied also. And that's when I started making inquiries and I got involved with the contractor to try to find, okay, what did they really need and really want. And that's when we ran into the resistance from some other departments. And I think Investigator O'Farrell is here, who took Mr. Halesworth's place, if the board would want to make any inquiries -- would like to make any inquiries of her. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, environmental investigator for Collier County Code Enforcement Board. MR. KELLY: Susan, my only question was could you perhaps corroborate the fact that they did work diligently, maybe ran into some obstacles that were beyond their control? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes, I believe that is true. MR. KELLY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Michelle, I'll re-ask my question. Do you have a position? MS. ARNOLD: Well, no, I don't. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MR. DEAN: Can I ask one question? I'm just not clear on one thing. When somebody has a time frame, don't they come in and ask Page 29 February 23, 2007 for an extension? MS. O'FARRELL: Mr. Pires and I were in communication by phone and bye-mail continuously during that part with the electrical inspection where he was asking for time and I was granting it to him. And I was working with Bill Hammond trying to get him moving so that he would be able to come into compliance. But we were in communication fairly constantly through that period. He never let it go. He never let it drop. MR. DEAN: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: At this time I'll close the public comment and go to the board for comments and discussion. MR. KELLY: With all of the talk recently in our cases about granting enough time, I think this is a perfect opportunity to set a precedence where ifby not the respondent's fault, by other means, county's delays, that we have the opportunity to forgive some of the fines that maybe have been imposed. It's obvious that they did work diligently and they saw the importance that we tried to place on the issue and that I fully recommend forgiving and abating the fines. MR. PONTE: I would agree with that. At least reducing the fines $1,600. I think -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I think the number is 1,643.75. MR. PONTE: I'm good at rounding. 1,600 is what I would have said. But 1,643. MR. KRAENBRING: I guess the only comment I had for that is that I think we should avoid trying to set any kind of precedence and make sure that we let the public know that we hear these cases on a case-by-case basis. So let's stay away from the term precedence if we could. MR. MORGAN: I'd like to see the fine completely abated. I think they acted in a prudent manner. If I remember the case, they said that they would start immediately. And, you know, there's been a lot of delays in getting permits. I think this is where the boardwalk Page 30 February 23, 2007 had to be rebuilt and the Tiki hut had to be removed and some vegetation replanted. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The only issue is they've even mentioned the fact that their mitigation plan was an oversight on their part. So they were a little bit late in getting that done. MS. ARNOLD: And the county would object to waiving the operational costs. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Right. We can't do that, so -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any other comments? MR. KRAENBRING: I think that they've presented their case very well today and it's been corroborated by the investigator who's followed up the initial investigation that they were diligent. So I'd make a motion that we abate the fines in the amount of 6,250. And I believe they then will be agreeing to pay the $1,000 in operational costs. MR. KELLY: Before that motion is seconded, can I respond, Richard, to your comment? I agree with you not setting precedence. I apologize, that might have been the wrong word to use in this case. But I would like to set an example to where parties coming in front of us, this is a perfect example of how people working due diligently to solve their issues, and just a perfect textbook example. MR. KRAENBRING: I agree. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second the motion. MS. ARNOLD: Can I make a request that there be a time specified for the payment? Because quite often we -- especially with reductions, and then we have to forward these to the county attorney's office for handling. So if you could make a specified time. In fact, I believe your rules give up to 30 days. So if you want to give a more expedited time than that. MR. KRAENBRING: Do you have a check? MR. PIRES: Yes, we do. Page 31 February 23, 2007 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Well, put in a time frame. MR. KRAENBRING: Again, the time frame as proposed by the county of 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: I amend my second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. So we have a motion to reduce the fine to the $1,000 and operational costs. So the total, if I'm not mistaken, is 1,643.75. They have up to 30 days to pay it. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. PIRES: Thank you all very much. And thank you for taking me out of order. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We'll go back to the stipulated hearings. And I believe we have BCC versus Capri International, which is Case No. 2007-10. MR. LEFEBVRE: C-1. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we're at C-1 now. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I keep losing my place in it. MR. DEAN: Me, too. We're jumping around here. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sorry about that. I'm sorry. I skipped number one, which is BCC versus Anne and Jerome Guidish. I apologize. MR. DEAN: What number are we going to? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That's 2007-01. Go back to the very Page 32 February 23,2007 first stipulated agreement. MS. MARKU: For the record, Bendisa Marku, operations coordinator for Collier County Code Enforcement. I would like to ask if the respondents are present. MR. GUIDISH: Is this on the Guidish case? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. GUIDISH: We are present. MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondents are present. The respondent and the board will send a package of evidence. And I would like to enter that package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: A violation of Sections 3.05.01(B). Description of violation: Property has been cleared in excess of one acre and landscape company was observed cutting down a total of 58 mature cypress trees. Location/address where violation exists: 5181 Hickory Wood Drive, Naples, Florida, 34113. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation: Anne Guidish. Date violation first observed: September 16th, 2005. Page 33 February 23, 2007 Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 26th, 2005. Date by which violation to be corrected: November 1st, 2005. Date of reinspection: October 7th, 2006. Result of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time, I would like to call -- to turn the case to the investigator, Susan O'Farrell. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. O'FARRELL: For the record once again, Susan O'Farrell, environmental investigator, Collier County Code Enforcement. MR. ERICKSON: Louis Erickson, attorney for Jerome and Anne Guidish. MS. O'FARRELL: This case began in September 16th of2005. I was on-site with a former investigator, Christal Segura, where we observed a landscape company cutting down mature cypress trees and clearing out palm trees. It looked to be that they were thinning out the property so that the sod that was there would be growing more healthy. This was a violation, because what we found out later was that the house, the driveway, the septic field and an island that they have in the middle of the yard measured out to be .99 acres. You're allowed to clear one acre in Collier County with your building permit. Anything over that, you need to have an accessory use and permission from the county in order to do that. So when Mr. and Mrs. Guidish cut down the 58 cypress trees, they exceeded that one acre. I worked very hard on this case trying to negotiate with Mr. and Mrs. Guidish. I worked with Marco Espinar, who was their first environmental consultant who they thought about hiring in order to turn in a mitigation plan. Then I began working with Jerry Neale, who ultimately did turn in a mitigation plan, which I approved. That plan was approved in Page 34 February 23, 2007 December. Up to that date, there has been no work done whatsoever towards completing the mitigation plan. I have a copy of the mitigation plan, as well as the landscape plan, which I requested from Mr. Guidish to show exactly where they would be putting the plants, so that if they hired a landscape company it would be easier for them to install the plan. From the time I spoke to Jerry Neale, which was back in December, I have not heard any communication whatsoever from the Guidish family. MR. ERICKSON: May it please the board. Louis Erickson on behalf of the Guidish family. I was retained just recently on this matter. We have a couple of -- in looking at it and trying to get up to date, noticed a couple of concerns that I do have. First, just some procedural concerns that I'll raise to the board, and perhaps due process. The -- this did apparently begin back in 2005, and there was a notice of ordinance violation and order to correct in which it appears there was a stipulation entered into by the parties, I believe it was back in October, whatever, of 2005 in which they agreed to do -- hire an environmental consultant to complete and submit the mitigation plan. And then interestingly, it's number two on this, and I think that's what we're here on today, it states that within 15 days of mitigation plan approval installation of plant material must begin. The Guidishes will be testifying that there was a mitigation plan, and we will acknowledge a mitigation plan was obtained. They did comply with major portions of the mitigation plan. They planted many of the things that were required there. They have run into problems that require -- involve the planting of some cypress trees, the size of which they are not able to locate in Florida. Or they have not been able to locate to plant. Page 35 February 23, 2007 Essentially -- and some of the mitigation plan even it appears to provide for them to put undergrowth and vegetation beyond their property line and into an easement, which I think obviously would be very questionable as to whether they should be putting things into an easement. In any event, they did certainly begin and do substantial amounts of compliance within the mitigation plan, as required. They have had a running battle with the code enforcement on this in that much of what is being requested -- basically, they're out in the Logan Woods -- this is in the Logan Woods area. And the land was cleared, that .99 acres. I'm assuming they're correct. I certainly haven't investigated all that. The clearing of the land took place when the builder built this house. And assuming that it was just below the one acre, I'm assuming he knew what he was doing and he intentionally kept it there, nothing wrong with that, so that -- and he did clear the back of the area, the back of the yard. Most of the clearing was for a septic tank and the septic field is where the vast majority of the clearing took place and with the house, I'm assuming, where the house is located. The Guidishes bought the house after all of that. And basically they put in a fence along the front of the house and along the sides. And to put the fence into the house, they did have to do some clearing. That's where the substantial part of their clearing was. They got a fence permit and there's been no suggestion that their fence permit was improper. They got a fence permit and it appears -- and again, I'm not 100 percent sure I'm completely accurate on all these things, but in doing the clearing so they could put the fence in is where their additional clearing came in that then, I guess, puts them over the one-acre aspect of the clearing that we're told is allowed. And so code enforcement sees that problem and then that's where it has essentially begun and carried on to. The Guidishes have not removed -- they have -- the mitigation Page 36 February 23, 2007 plan I think shows that they have something like 116 cypress trees in the front of their house. They've got something like 350 around the entire property. They have a significant amount of coverage. And they have been attempting to comply. They planted, along with -- the mitigation requirement requires 40 cabbage palms. They planted those. It required 200 saw palmettos of three-gallon. Apparently all they got was 100 five-gallon containers, palmettos. They planted 45 five-gallon containers of wax myrtle instead of the 30 three-gallon that it provided. They have -- they want their yard to look nice. They have not added any sod. The sod that was there, they do want it to grow, of course, or they want it to look nice. They have not taken away any additional plants. They have begun compliance. And they have been trying to work with -- according to the Guidishes, they have been trying to work with the code inspector to alleviate what remaining problems they have. The plan does call for certain -- I believe it's 15 cypress trees of a certain size that they simply cannot locate, and they're really not sure where to plant the 15 cypress trees. As a matter of fact, the cypress trees that were cut down, some of these cypress trees were apparently cut down before they got involved. They acknowledge cutting down approximately 20 cypress trees. The allegation was that there were 60 cypress trees cut down. Many of these cypress trees are growing back or having shoots coming back. Now, they have a concern about the -- and this is a problem. I know this is more the Guidishes problem, perhaps, than you alls problem. The mitigation plan apparently calls -- it calls for 1,072 swamp fern in one-gallon containers. They have a concern there, because apparently -- first of all, the swamp fern, what their understanding is from their yard maintenance and yard person is, and quite frankly, swamp ferns do breed mosquitoes and it's making the place into a swamp. Page 37 February 23, 2007 And the concern they have is that their place is not a swamp right now. It may have been one at one point, but with the change of the canals and whatever, it is not a swamp. And probably the only way they're going to be able to get 1,072 swamp ferns to continue growing is to flood the area with a sprinkler system. They're concerned. And I know when you do have mitigation and you plant these plants, they have to be there for at least a year, or five years, I'm not sure exactly what it is. They're concerned they can even get the swamp fern to keep growing. One other technical concern I do have is I'm trying to point out this is a fairly complex case. They're not trying to destroy the environment. They have no problems conserving the environment. They do not feel like they've been worked with as well as they should have been worked with with the county code inspectors to alleviate problems that have come up as they've tried to comply with the mitigation plan. I would also point out that when they contacted me regarding this hearing, it was -- I've been dealing with the Guidishes on other issues continuously for the last six months, and especially the last three months, and it was not until last week that -- late last week that I was told that they found out they have a hearing today on this violation. And the notice of hearing -- I finally got yesterday, as a matter of fact -- states that attached to it is a statement of violation. I obtained the statement of violation from the code inspector this morning and showed it to my clients. This is the statement of violation eXplaining what the concerns are. And they had not seen this document as to what the precise statement of violation that they're here today -- what we're here today on is. And so we do have a concern with respect to the due process of the notice situation. This is something that I guess in a sense the Guidishes, they feel that they need more assistance with the code enforcement to work out a -- with the mitigation plan, you know. They have complied -- that's Page 38 February 23, 2007 why they're surprised when she says there's been no compliance whatsoever with the mitigation plan. There certainly has been compliance with the mitigation plan. They're prepared to testify -- Mrs. Anne Guidish is prepared to testify she did very much of the planting herself. She knows she planted an awful lot of, hundreds of plants over the past year. And most of it was done expeditiously once they began doing the planting. And so essentially what we would be requesting is that this be continued, we be allowed to work with them to find out what the final deficiencies are. Because again, I point out the order to correct violations does state that within 15 days of mitigation plan approval installation of plant material must begin. It does not put an ending date on it. It would seem there should be an ending date on it. And it does not appear that this is a situation where you would go back and get some formal certificate of occupancy, at least that I'm aware of. There's nothing that says how you complete this process in that order. I think it may have been an oversight at the time. So their position is that they are in compliance with this. We had no objection to working with the county to finish up the compliance. But certainly, if part of the mitigation plan provides for redoing landscaping in the easement area, I think that would have to be addressed as to whether it's practical or even allowed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MS. ARNOLD: With regards to the notification of the property, we sent certified mail to the Guidishes, and they did not pick it up, so it was returned to our office. We sent regular mail to them on January 30th. And I was just checking the system about -- we gave the investigator the notice to be posted on the property as well, which is what the statute requires. MS. O'FARRELL: The property was posted on the 1st of February . MR. ERICKSON: My only claim there basically is that the Page 39 February 23, 2007 statement of violation and request which says was attached as far as they do not -- they had not seen that, statement was not attached to the notice that was posted. The notice was posted, we acknowledge that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Questions? Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: Go ahead. MR. LEFEBVRE: First of all, it says the date of violation to be corrected was 11/1/2005. How come it took nearly 11 months, over 11 months before reinspection? MS. O'FARRELL: Before reinspections? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, we had meetings all during that time before that -- before we are here now. The problem that I ran into was that -- I'm not sure how to phrase this diplomatically, but it was very difficult to carry on a conversation with Mr. Guidish on the telephone. So he turned it over to Marco Espinar who was on the phone with me asking questions about what I wanted. I explained to him several times that it was not a landscape plan, that it needed to be a mitigation plan, that there is a significant difference between the two. After spending several phone calls with Marco Espinar, he then told me that he hadn't actually been hired by the Guidishes to do the plan. So then we started getting calls from Jerry Neale from Hole-Montes, who then was hired by the Guidishes. And we worked really closely and very hard together to come up with a plan that was acceptable to the county. The original plan that would have been required by following the Land Development Code would have cost the Guidishes -- we all know it's a lot of money for those mitigation plans. And so I was really, really diligent and faithful in trying to negotiate with Jerry Neale a number of plants -- a number of trees that would satisfy the fact that they had cut down 58 cypress trees, but would also restore the Page 40 February 23, 2007 environment there to what is should be and what the LDC requires. MR. LEFEBVRE: The other question, can you put the photo of the property back up, please, showing the trees that were cut down and so forth. MS. O'FARRELL: Is that the one you wanted to see? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. I see some trees that obviously -- are these what you're calling in question, the ones that are cut down, the stumps or a little more than stumps there? They're about three feet high -- MS. O'FARRELL: That's exactly a representation of the stumps that were cut down. Some of them were cut down and left to just stand at two feet tall. MR. LEFEBVRE: Counsel stated that these were removed due to the fact that a fence was installed? MS. O'FARRELL: I would have to disagree with that, because the cypress trees that were cut down were cut down all over the property in the front of the house. They weren't cut down in a straight line that you would expect from a fence, or even an angled line, which is what he was intending to put the fence up. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: You had a question? MR. PONTE: Yes, for the investigator. Point of clarification about the counsel for the respondent talking about 1,000 swamp ferns. Is that in the plan? And is that correct, 1,000 swamp ferns -- MS. O'FARRELL: That's correct-- MR. PONTE: -- could turn the property into a swamp? MS. O'FARRELL: Well, the Land Development Code requires that a mitigation plan be based on adjacent properties, and so their environmental consultant was the one who submitted this plan based on his observation of adjacent properties. And that was what he found on those properties. MR. PONTE: Thank you. Page 41 February 23, 2007 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) MS. O'FARRELL: I think the reason we're here today is because they submitted a mitigation plan that they approved, that Jerry Neale did under their direction, and they have failed to implement it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Have they started planting anything? Because they're saying that they did. MS. O'FARRELL: I've observed in the -- I haven't been able to access the property because they've closed the gate and made it hard to see in. But what I have seen on the outside of the gate is between 20 and 30 plants. They're not the sizes that were agreed to on the mitigation plan, and they're not planted in the areas that the mitigation plan shows. MR. KRAENBRING: There was a comment as to -- that the mitigation plan approval must begin within 15 days -- pardon me, 15 days after approval. Do you have a sense of -- MS. O'FARRELL: I'm glad you brought that up, because I'd like to respond to that. The plan was approved on March 20th of'06. That was when I met with Jerry Neale. I called Jerry Neale and left a message and said that the installation was to begin no later than 4/4 of '06. He said that he would call Mr. Guidish. He spoke with Mr. Guidish and gave him the deadline. On 4/12 I received a call from Jerry Neale that Mr. Guidish had begun installation, but the water pump had gone down and they'd lost trees. He asked if I would extend the deadline into the rainy season. I agreed to June 1 st for the complete installation. MR. KRAENBRING: Of those dates. MS. O'FARRELL: So I've given many extensions on these deadlines. MR. KELLY: Susan, is there a way to possibly redo the Page 42 February 23, 2007 mitigation plan, seeing as how they're having problems finding these cypress trees? MS. O'FARRELL: I would be more than happy to negotiate the mitigation plan. I've been trying to do that from the beginning. But what I finally accepted was what they offered me. If they want to go back and refine it or redefine it -- I just would like to see mostly the canopy trees and the mid-story replanted. MR. KELLY: What it appears to me is, though, you have a couple issues with the ferns and the cypress. If you're able to resubmit a mitigation plan that maybe had something that was available, something that would satisfy both parties, we could do that. What the board is going to want to do is to enter an order against the property. And in that order we're going to give you time frames to do these things. Maybe one of those time frames will be to rewrite the mitigation plan, make it acceptable by the county, and then give you another time frame to have that mitigation plan completely finished. MR. LEFEBVRE: The respondents can stand up. MR. GUIDISH: Hi, my name is Jerry Guidish. And the reason that we didn't -- there's been a lot of discussion about what happened and how it all took place. I did not know I was given -- my builder told me that I had a wetlands issue on the left corner of my property. The rest of the property was not in wetlands, it was in uplands, okay. I have documentation to that effect. And we also had people come out and give me their own information on what they thought -- she gave me a list of people to use. I've called three of the people, they came out and they said what she's doing is totally ridiculous, okay. That's what I told her, that's when the fight broke out. And this is strictly a fight between me and Susan O'Farrell. It has nothing to do with what we planted and what we didn't plant. We pulled our county permits, we hired a professional landscaper to cut the trees, we hired a professional fence guy to put up the fence. We Page 43 February 23, 2007 had a six-foot sweep that we're allowed to cut to put up the fence. And we did exactly what we were supposed to do. And all of a sudden we start bumping heads with Susan O'Farrell. And it wasn't just me, it was my wife. And she told my landscaping guy, she told me that they're going to throw the book at us, okay. And I said okay, we'll go along with whatever they want us to go along with. We have planted every single bush and tree that she has required us to plant. Even though we have pictures of every adjacent property of our house, and there's nothing that we ever touched that was low or mid-story, and she's aware of that. And we have pictures of every other property in our area that she's talking about is comparable to our area. No one has more trees on their property than we do. Even her own people said we have more than enough canopy trees. So I don't know. I've planted everything -- the only thing that we couldn't get was the swamp ferns and the cypress. Everything else is planted. And I have the pictures to show you they're planted. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Let me ask you a question. Per the mitigation plan, I believe it specifies specific sizes. According to what your attorney stated, you didn't always plant the exact size, sometimes you went to a smaller size; is that correct? MR. GUIDISH: Yes, it is correct. And I also went to four different landscaping companies, and they said that they could provide what they could provide. When I did plant, I planted bigger, not smaller. And that's one thing she's not telling you. And the 45 trees that I originally planted all died because my pump station went down on my sprinkler system. They were the 45 -- she requested 30 of the wax myrtles. I planted 45 because the guy had 45 and wanted to give me a deal. They were over-sized. I took them. I planted them all across the front where I was supposed to plant them, and they all died. So then we called her back and we said they all died. She said Page 44 February 23, 2007 that's not my problem. Okay, it's not your problem. Then we went back to her and I said, I can't find 14- foot high cypress trees. Call any landscape company you want, you cannot find 14-foot high cypress trees. And I said, I can't find them. She goes, that's too bad, that's not my problem. And of course we did have words. There's no doubt about it. And she even told my landscaping guy, if we hadn't got into an argument about what was going on I wouldn't have been fined at all. I wouldn't have been cited at all. Because I still have 160 trees in my front yard. Not only did I not plant the saw palmettos, but they were three-gallon. I planted five-gallon. If you listen to what my attorney said, everything I planted was bigger. It was whatever they had in stock. And she called up and she said, you haven't done any planting. I said Susan, I have two trailer loads full of stuff in my front yard ready to be planted on Monday. I never heard from her again. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do you have any receipts from the plants that you purchased? MR. GUIDISH: I did not. This was something we were talking about this morning, about where the plants are. I'll be happy to provide it. I bought it all from Square's Landscaping and from the place next to it, Landscaper's Choice. Those were the two places that could provide me with all the stuff. And I do have receipts to everything I paid for. I'm about $13,000 into this. It cost me $1,000 to cut down the trees. I hired a licensed tree removal guy, who is sitting here, who cut down the trees in order for me to put up the fence. (Unidentified speaker in the audience.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: She can't take that. MR. GUIDISH: But the thing is, what he's saying is he cut down approximately 25 trees. Susan O'Farrell came out there and talked to my wife. Obviously Page 45 February 23, 2007 they had a disagreement. And I called up Susan O'Farrell, and I said what right do you have to come on my property when I pulled the fence permit and I hired the proper people. All county licensed people. I'm not trying to do anything behind anybody's back. I never would. Look at the size of my home. And she goes, well, judging by the size of your home, you have plenty of money to spend on landscaping. Well, you know what, that's her opinion. My opinion is, am I in compliance and did I do anything wrong. Now, I have three businesses in Collier County. I pay a lot of property taxes. If this is nothing more than a wetlands piece of property I own, then take my $21,000 tax bill and reduce it. But if it is not a wetlands, if it is uplands, and every other -- I would like to show you some of my pictures, since she showed you her pictures of nothing being planted -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Would you like to introduce that as evidence? MR. ERICKSON: Yes, we would. We would like to make a motion to introduce these pictures as evidence. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) MR. GUIDISH: Can I actually go over there and show them? Page 46 February 23, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: These pictures were taken as of when? MR. GUIDISH: They were taken 2/22/07. Yesterday, I believe. Okay, this is going across the front of the property, which she just showed a piece of area that was completely bare. You just got done seeing a completely bare plane. That is completely filled with plants now. The whole front of my property is filled with plants. She says she has no recollection of this, or that she looked at it and there might have been 20 plants planted. There are 45 trees just on the left-hand side of that pillar. This is the other side. You can see my fence post on the right-hand side of the column. You can see all of the trees that were all replanted. I only left enough space for my actual fence. Everything else has been replanted with trees. They're right there. This isn't made up. If you look at all of the little ferns that she wanted planted -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Did you follow the mitigation plan? MR. GUIDISH: My engineer -- it ended up that I called three environmental companies. They all came out and they said it's totally ridiculous. What their job was is to restore wetlands, not to get involved with a dispute. And so none of them did -- MR. LEFEBVRE: The question I have for you -- MR. GUIDISH: I had to go to my engineer. Jerry Neale is an engineer. He came out with a -- what was that lady, a scientist or a -- biologist or something. And they walked the property and the woman said, I can't believe this is even being done. I can't even walk in my back yard. I own 2.73 acres and I can't even walk in my back yard. MR. LEFEBVRE: My question to you is, the mitigation plan that was submitted, which was submitted by your engineer, did you follow that plan? MR. GUIDISH: No, I didn't file the plan, he filed the plan. Page 47 February 23, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: No, did you follow the plan? MR. GUIDISH: Oh, did I follow the plan? Yes. Up until we got to the point -- there's a yes and no thing here. And I would like the board to look at this. They have -- Susan O'Farrell would not accept any of our plants. So we kept going back, kept going back. That's why this has been going on for a year. That's why I have $3,000 worth of fees in just landscaping plans for Ms. O'Farrell to approve. Now she said -- well, now she approved our plan. It's totally ridiculous. There's no way I could replant all these trees. First of all, they weren't cut. And second of all, if you allow me to go ahead and just show a picture of my house now. This is the entrance going into my house, where's it at? This one on the bottom. There's my house in the background. And she's saying I cleared all this property and I never replanted it. I did. MS. ARNOLD: If I can interrupt, perhaps we could get this whole thing expedited by continuing it to next month, having my staff go out to the property to see what has been planted to date. There has been a mitigation plan approved; is that correct? MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: And to compare that between what's planted and what's on the plan and what is yet to be planted. That's the only thing really that is in dispute. And we can also look -- and take photos of, you know, the location of the fence in relation to the vegetation that was removed that's in dispute at this moment. MR. GUIDISH: I would love to do that, and I would also like to show you, the board, what the other properties in the neighborhood look like. We took pictures -- MS. ARNOLD: I would object to that, because it has no relevance to your particular case. We're not -- MR. GUIDISH: Well, I thought she said that low-story and mid-story that were all through the area was consistent, on a consistent basis with my property. Isn't that what she stated? Page 48 February 23, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: I think what was indicated was your consultant referred to adjacent properties. And, you know, we're not disputing what your consultant submitted. We've already approved the mitigation plan. Just what's in question is what's out there, whether or not it's sufficient and if you need to put more vegetation. MR. GUIDISH: If you look at the mitigation plan, you will see that it's -- there is no way you can do it, because it actually goes into the county retention area. MR. LEFEBVRE: Then there may be a possibility that you can coordinate with the county and you can get the mitigation plan amended -- MR. GUIDISH: If I could just get someone out there that would actually -- MR. LEFEBVRE: -- and you can have it amended -- MR. GUIDISH: I would like -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Excuse me. MS. ARNOLD: Excuse me, one at a time is what the court reporter is saying, when one person is speaking. And I think the board member has the floor right now, okay? MR. LEFEBVRE: That if you have the plantings that are suitable there, you can have your mitigation plan amended, and if that could be done prior to our meeting next month, come back. And if you have a mitigation plan that's amended along with the plantings you have there, that might be a solution. MR. ERICKSON: That's what I think we'll look to do is to show substantial compliance, if nothing else, with the mitigation plan. There may be certain elements that cannot be complied with, but we will be looking toward substantial compliance with it. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can I make a motion? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I would like to cease and desist at the moment and ask the board to consider let's moving this to continuance. Page 49 _"_--....-.."_W'""_..'''.,~.____._~."____."'____,.".,,,.,,.....',"_'," ,_ ,____, ....._~"_.._"~'_.,.,_.....~_..~'"._~"~"_,~^._."'_~,_. February 23, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: I make the motion to continue -- MR. DEAN: Second. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- to next month. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: The meeting, Mr. Guidish and representative -- I didn't get your name, I'm sorry -- is March 22nd, and it will be in this location again at 9:00, okay? MR. GUIDISH: Will I be in contact with someone? MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely. If you can give me your phone number and information. And some of that information you actually entered into evidence, so we'll have to keep it for the court reporter, whatever pictures you showed, okay? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: One second. Before you leave, we have a board member that wants to make one comment. MR. LEFEBVRE: It's regarding waiving notice, written notice. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Michelle, do you want them to waive notice? MS. ARNOLD: Do you want to waive notice? MR. ERICKSON: We'll waive notice. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, at this time we're going to take Page 50 February 23, 2007 a five-minute recess. We'll be back at 10:37. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Looks like we're missing one of our board members. We're going to go ahead and start, because I did give a time frame. So I'd like to reconvene this meeting. And if I haven't lost my place, I believe we're at number five. MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That's BCC versus Capri International. And that's No. 2007-10. THE INTERPRETER: Good morning. My name is Janet Hassam. I will be here to interpret for Mr. Homar-- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All right. THE INTERPRETER: -- Hassam of Capri. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. First off we need to have it read to record and then we'll have you guys sworn in. MS. MARKU: The respondent is present, for the record. I'd like to state that the respondent is present. The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence and I would like to enter that package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? Page 51 February 23, 2007 (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 2004-58, Section 12. Description of violation: The two mobile homes located on this property have been identified by the health department as being deteriorated beyond repair and constituting a threat to the health of the occupants. Location/address where violation exists: 512 North 10th Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. 73181480000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Capri International, Incorporated, 3605 Southwest 139th Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33175. Date violation first observed: September 22nd, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 27th, 2006. Date on/by which the violation to be corrected: October 27th, 2006. Date of reinspection: October 27th, 2006. Result of reinspection: Violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Joe Mucha. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: At this time, Cherie', if you'd like to swear him in, please. (Speaker and interpreter were duly sworn.) MR. MUCHA: For the record, Investigator Mucha, that's M-U-C-H-A, Collier County Code Enforcement. And I just wanted to say that the respondents have actually requested the hearing, so I believe they should be going first. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. THE INTERPRETER: He has agreed to remove one of the mobile homes in that lot. But he would like the opportunity to fix the one that's in better condition. And that's what I asked of the health department through Joe Mucha. Page 52 .----..'^.-..-.-...-.,.-.-~".-,~,___,._.o.~,_ . .A,'. _......"..._.,.... ....,_""'_._."..._._~,.;..._~,~_.........~.__,... February 23, 2007 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. As far as the health department -- MS. ARNOLD: Can I just clarify what we're doing here? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes, please. MR. DEAN: I want to know if it's occupied. That's what I'm after. MS. ARNOLD: What this particular case is in reference to is an unsafe structure. And the ordinance has been cited and provided to you. There is a process in which we provide notice to the owner that the building has been deemed to be a dangerous building. And they have the ability to appeal that decision, and so they have requested an appeal to that particular decision. And that's why we're here today. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. That helps. At this time, would you like to give us some evidence in regards to your findings and also that of the health department? MR. MUCHA: Yes, ma'am. I'd like to submit two packets of evidence; one that was initially given to me from the health department from their initial inspection, and then a packet of evidence from when I made a site visit. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. May I hear a motion to accept the packets. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 53 '-~--"'_"'<""_".'_'~"--~_.,-,q--~..,--->...~...-",.,."..~-"'" .,.- ^" - '_".,.~.,.__.""-, February 23, 2007 Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I guess that would be County's Exhibits 2 and 3? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. And I believe the respondent has received both exhibits? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Please proceed. MR. KRAENBRING: Why don't we put them up on the screen. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Is this the one from the health department first? MR. MUCHA: Yes, ma'am. The first thing that is being put on the screen is a letter that was sent to Mr. Hassam from the health department. And that basically states that on July 17th, 2006 the two mobile homes which are identified as Units 510 and 512 were found not to be in compliance with the minimum standards as set forth in Chapter 64.E-14, Florida Administrative Code. And it says see attached and incorporated herein the copy of the July 17th, 2006 inspection form, which I'll be putting up next. And it states here that these units cannot be repaired and constitute a threat to the health of the occupants. And this is a copy of their inspection report. That's kind of -- I don't know if you can really see. Basically has all the ticks that they marked off. Some of the things that they marked off is for operable utilities, electrical, the cleanliness, windows and screens, disrepair to the ceiling, floor and walls. Just overall repair. The extermination of insects, infestation, I believe it was probably roaches. Plumbing. Toilets that weren't operational. Again, cleanliness. They'd also marked offbeds and bedding, because they do for migrant inspections, so that's why they turned it over to us. Page 54 February 23, 2007 These are pictures from the health department. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you spin that around, please? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: It's upside down. MR. MUCHA: This appears to be in trailer 512. MR. PONTE: These trailers or mobiles are now vacant? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: Thank you. MR. MUCHA: I'm going to put mine up from when I made a site visit on September 22nd. This is outside of the door of Unit 512. And you see the windows are all broken. This is the kitchen area inside of 512. You can see there's a hole in the floor. I mean, the flooring is really bad, deteriorated shape. The walls, there's no interior walls. You can see the actual exterior wall there. This is how they've been repairing the ceilings inside the trailer with duct tape. This is a shot of a circuit breaker. And I believe there's an electrical outlet there and light switches that don't have power plates. And I don't really trust the integrity of the wiring inside this mobile home. This is another shot of the ceiling collapsing in. Here is what appears to be a fire that may have -- or some sparks or a fire that may have started due to the wiring inside the trailer. And this is, I believe, a shot of some more of the electrical work and just kind of showing that, I mean, they've basically gutted out the entire trailer. Okay, yeah, there is another shot just showing that basically everything has been gutted out. Okay, this is an outside view of the trailer, just showing the kind of the condition the exterior of the mobile home is in. Now, this is -- I didn't actually get to get inside this mobile home, because it was locked the day that I was out there. But this is the other Page 55 February 23, 2007 mobile home on-site, which basically the health department has deemed to be an unsafe condition. And this a broken window. And then there appears to be something blocking the window from inside. I don't know what exactly, what that is. I don't know if it's plastic or -- I can't remember. But something's blocking the window. And this is the sewer line for both the mobile homes that's above ground, which is a problem. I think that's all the pictures I have. Basically the problem I have here is that they -- now, they want to do the repairs to the mobile homes, but there's nobody that will come in and do the inspection after they're done. Because the building department will not look at a mobile home because it's considered a motor vehicle. And I'm kind of worried that whoever, you know, comes in and does the work isn't -- no one's going to be able to check it to make sure it's up to the standards that the county sets forth and, therefore, down the road, as you can see, they've already had some kind of electrical issues. If there was a fire and if somebody, you know, got hurt or killed, I wouldn't want that on my conscience. And I just think that both those mobile homes are just basically in really bad shape. When you've got to completely gut the mobile homes, I just don't think -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MS. RAWSON: While this witness is on the stand, we probably should introduce all of the packet into evidence. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We did already. MS. RAWSON: Okay. We have to be sure that the court reporter receives all the exhibits from all the cases. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. I wasn't sure where they went. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We're kind of actually keeping them Page 56 February 23, 2007 up here, so -- THE COURT REPORTER: That would be great. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Does the respondent have any comments other than -- THE INTERPRETER: Yeah, first of all, the mobile homes are vacant. He has already agreed to remove one. He just wants an opportunity to fix another one. He can get -- if he cannot have somebody to go out there, he can get a licensed certified electrician to do all the electrical work and then furnish it with that. We were fixing it when he went by to do the inspection and the health department. And when you take apart a mobile home, it looks that way. He didn't come by when it was finished. And then he was told that he was supposed to just demolish or take them away. He just basically wants the opportunity to be able to fix one of them. He agreed to remove the other one. He said that the adjacent homes and other trailer homes around have had the opportunity to get fixed, and he would like the same opportunity for him. And he would like to know who deemed them -- who -- yeah, he brought the pictures after the hurricane and after -- this is in Immokalee, and when places are vacant, a lot of people go inside and destroy and trash properties. And he basically said that he got -- you know, he went in, they took the pictures when it was all falling apart, but he has all the materials to put it back together. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: One question. The trailer that he wants to demolish is which number? And which one does he want to restore? THE INTERPRETER: The one that's taken apart of them two, I think it's the 512, Joe? MR. MUCHA: That's correct. THE INTERPRETER: Yeah, 512 is the one he would like to fix. MR. KELLY: Do you have pictures of that particular unit, or Page 57 February 23, 2007 can we correspond to the investigator's pictures? In our regulations we have to determine whether or not this particular home is more than 33 percent destroyed. That's the regulation we have to use. So I guess we have to do it by photograph. MR. LEFEBVRE: Investigator, can you put up the health report again, please, that has the little tick marks and everything? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. LEFEBVRE: And more importantly, towards the bottom. THE INTERPRETER: He would like to show a picture of that same mobile home that he would like to repair. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We need to enter that into evidence, so -- MR. KELLY: And if you have more photos, you should enter them all as one packet. THE INTERPRETER: This next picture is the one that he wants to demolish. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I need to entertain a motion to accept their evidence -- MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. KRAENBRING: Seconded. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: George did it, he seconded it. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Now, go ahead. Mr. Dean, do you Page 58 February 23, 2007 want -- is that okay? MR. DEAN: Yes. I just wanted to ask -- go ahead with the pictures, then I'll ask. MR. MUCHA: That's Unit 512, the one that they want to repair. MS. ARNOLD: That's the other one. MR. MUCHA: That's the one that they said they will demolish. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Mr. Dean? MR. DEAN: I'd like to ask two questions. When is the last time the property was occupied? And when is the last time that work was done on that unit? THE INTERPRETER: Mayor June last year. He started in September, he was taking it apart in September, and then he got a notice from the health department through code enforcement that he wasn't able to fix it. MR. PONTE: I have a question for the respondent. Both of these units appear to me to be quite comparable. What am I missing? What is the respondent's reason for wanting to fix one of them and to demolish or take away the other? THE INTERPRETER: He'd just like the same right that has been given to everybody around him and the other houses adjacent to that. MR. PONTE: Why doesn't he want to fix both of them? THE INTERPRETER: If you give him enough time, he'd be able to fix both. MS. ARNOLD: I just want to make a point that the investigator noted that the concern is some -- these trailers may be beyond repair. And there is also the circumstance that exists in the county right now that there's nobody inspecting the repairs to these mobile homes, and so there's no verification whether or not -- even though he's offered to hire a licensed electrician, whether or not some of these things are being repaired to code. There's a question of the structural integrity of the mobile homes themselves. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'm sorry, I kind of overstepped. You Page 59 --""""-""'''--''--_~"_______''''_"'___'''''__m'' February 23, 2007 had asked him to put something on and we never really discussed. So if you want to go back to that. MR. LEFEBVRE: No problem. If you could just remove that, the couple of pictures. And I think the board had enough time to read the health report, the narration on the bottom, which states that both of the units are beyond repair. And that was back in July, I think it was, that they went in? MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir, that was in July. MR. LEFEBVRE: Back in July of last year before anything was removed, any gutting of these units. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions or comments? MR. MORGAN: In your professional opinion, Unit 512 cannot be repaired satisfactorily? MR. MUCHA: I don't believe so, sir. Because like I said, there's nobody that will come in and do an inspection to ensure that it's up to the standards that the county sets forth. MR. MORGAN: So they're going to do the minimum requirements, or whatever you call minimum requirements. MR. LEFEBVRE: Mr. Morgan, I'd like to point out also here it says from the health department that neither of them are repairable. They're beyond repair. So not only, as I think the inspector is stating, that they're not going to be able to repair them, but also the health department is of the same understanding. MR. MORGAN: How about the fire inspector? MR. MUCHA: The fire inspector has not been to the mobile homes. MR. KRAENBRING: So the only body that is inspecting these is the health department; is that correct? That's the only person that ever visits these and assures that they're safe? MR. MUCHA: But they're the only ones besides the building official and the fire inspector to make that determination that it is an Page 60 February 23, 2007 unsafe structure. So at that point they determine that both these structures are unsafe. And I just went there to just verify their report, basically, because I can't just take their pictures, I wanted to see it for myself. THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Homar would like to know, aside from the health department, who else determines that these mobile homes are beyond repair? Is there an engineer, is it a contractor, anybody that can furnish us with a letter that they are beyond repair? Because since the health department can go in and make this list of things, you know, but they cannot go back and then -- do they inspect and say that they're beyond repair, but can they not go back and say that now they're fixed and reinspect? MR. MUCHA: That's up to them. I can't make them go back out. I can just only take their determination and -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions from the board? Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I'll wait till it closes. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any others? (N 0 response.) CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Okay, at this time I'm going to close the public hearing, which means you'll no longer be able to speak. We're just going to take it over to the board. MS. ARNOLD: Madam Chairman, before you do that, could I ask the respondent one question? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: This is not an issue for -- that has been brought before you all, but I just was curious whether or not the respondent is aware if there were permits obtained for both mobile homes. Because this is one parcel. THE INTERPRETER: Can you rephrase that question? MS. ARNOLD: Were building permits obtained for both mobile homes? Page 61 February 23, 2007 THE INTERPRETER: They've been there more than 20 years when he bought them. He's not sure. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. At this time I'm going to close the public hearing. Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: Investigator, could you put the photos from the respondent back up. Not the one from far away, the closer one, I believe, which was of 512. Do you have the other one? That one will work. That's one's fine. I'm sorry. F or a point of consideration, as part of our statute it determines a couple of different criteria. One of them is that 33 percent of the structure or greater has been deteriorated. Another one is that the structural members, the vertical structural members, which would be the walls in this case, list, lean or buckle. And I believe by the exterior sight in this picture you can see where that is occurring. We have no code in which to enforce a mobile home upon. It's not like a building inspector is going to go out and certify this. There is no reinspection, as county has said. The only thing that I could see in this, for our conscience and the safety of this board, would be to have them removed from the property . CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I am in agreement with you, Mr. Kelly. I have a lot of major concerns from seeing the pictures. Not only with the structural integrity of the trailers, but also the plumbing, the electrical. I am not sure that these can be brought up to any kind of safety standard. MR. DEAN: Did I not hear -- I thought I heard him say he Page 62 February 23, 2007 bought them over 20 years ago. But isn't there an economic life on some things? I mean, it's like a car. I mean, that thing is gone. And to try to preserve it? And let me say one quick thing: In Philadelphia I read an article in the Daily Herald on November 12th of this year -- I'm sorry, on Monday, this last Monday, February 10th, an article was in there about a woman who was 25 and her four children died in a home because it was like this, wiring, plumbing and things like this. And that wiring scares the devil out of me. And it's just hanging there. So when did they fix it? And is it -- when he said it was unoccupied, I wonder about that, you know. People go over there when you're not there and occupy it. Something like this should be gone. That's how I see it. MR. KELLY: Let me clarify my point. They've taken cars out of junkyards that were absolutely rusted to nothing and restored them to an absolute immaculate state. I don't think that there's an issue where they could restore this. The problem is there's no standard in which to set those restorations by. There is no code to enforce against. There is no inspections that would provide that safety that I think this board wants. MR. LEFEBVRE: I concur with the board. MR. PONTE: I agree. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other comments? MR. MORGAN: Agree. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion. First we have to find a finding of fact. MR. KELLY: I wanted to get county's recommendation. MR. MUCHA: My recommendation is that they pay all operational costs of $340.67; obtain demolition permits and demolish both mobile homes on the property; and remove all debris associated with the demolition of mobile homes to a facility designated for final disposal within 90 days of this hearing. Page 63 February 23, 2007 If violation is not abated by the respondent, Collier County will abate the violation by demolition at the property owner's expense. MR. PONTE: I'd like to suggest a slight revision there. I would go with 30 days, not 90 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's take a motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: First off, we have to have a finding of fact as to whether or not a violation exists. MR. PONTE: I was just making a point that I think that's too long. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion for a finding of fact. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion -- MR. PONTE: I'll second that. MR. LEFEBVRE: -- the fact that there is a violation. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Now we can go to your -- MR. PONTE: My observation simply is that I think 90 days is too long. And really, we should consider a 30-day time frame. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: In order to obtain the demolition permit? MR. PONTE: And remove it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And remove it. Page 64 . ,~-,_.~-,..~~ -"" ,. " .. . _.- "'~"""'='"',"'~"."""".h,""""''''*_",- February 23, 2007 MR. PONTE: And remove the debris. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And the debris. Do you really feel that someone from Miami can get that done in 30 days? MR. PONTE: I don't know who does it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The gentleman is from Miami. MR. KELLY: Investigator, do you know if anyone is occupying these or they can gain access, or is it completely boarded up or locked up? MR. MUCHA: 512 is boarded up, sort of. Just the front door is. But yeah, you could easily gain access to both of them if you really wanted to. MR. KRAENBRING: I think the issue that we've heard time and time again about vacant properties in Immokalee is that they're often broken into. So I'm not quite certain what anyone could do to secure the property completely to our satisfaction. As long as no one's occupying these, I don't have a problem with the time that the county is recommending, insomuch as you've got to get the permits, you've got to get these things taken care of. There is a financial obligation that this gentleman has to meet in order to do that. If they're not occupied, I have no problem with 90 days. MR. PONTE: But you can't secure them. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I have a question. What is the fine if he does not do this -- MR. MUCHA: I just basically put in there that the county would come in and demolish them at their expense. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you put that up on the -- the stipulation on the screen, please. MR. MUCHA: I just wanted to say that I had initially put 60 days, but they have asked me this morning if I could give them 90 days when we were discussing the removal of both mobile homes. So that's why I had extended it to 90 days. Page 65 February 23, 2007 MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation. MR. PONTE: I really want to just repeat that I think the time frame is too long. And these two units would be so easily accessible. They're not secured, and anyone could get in there with -- they're flimsy. They're a danger. And I think that they should be removed as quickly as possible. And I stand by my feeling that 30 days is the appropriate time frame. MR. LEFEBVRE: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. LEFEBVRE: I could see 60 days, but I would like to have something tied after that 60 days if it's not completed, that there would be a fine at a certain amount, maybe $150 a day. And then the county can remove the structures within 30 days. MR. KELLY: If I may, can I disagree with that only for one reason. If the county wanted to take one year, that would be 365 days times $150 a day against the respondent. I think that it should just be expeditiously taken care of by the means that the county normally uses and then charged against the property owner. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We currently have a motion on the floor. Do I hear a second? MR. KRAENBRING: I second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And that is for the 90-day interval, because that is what you first suggested. MR. PONTE: Even though the county's recommendation is 60 days. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: He said that he corrected that to 90 days. It's just this was the written form. So it is with the 90 days. That's why I was clarifying it. Am I correct, Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY : Yes, that's correct, 90 days. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So I have a motion on the floor and a Page 66 February 23, 2007 second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? MR. LEFEBVRE: Opposed. MR. PONTE: Opposed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The motion carries 5-2. You have 90 days to dispose of both trailers and get a demolition permit. MS. ARNOLD: A point of clarification: That the motion did also include that if not removed, the county would remove it and assess the cost of it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Now we're moving to case number seven, which is BCC versus Marene Santilli. I hope I said that right, or close. That's Case No. 2007-12. MS. MARKU: I'd like to ask if the respondents are present? F or the record, the respondent's not present. The respondent and the board was sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter the package as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion to accept the packet. MR. PONTE: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 67 February 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. MARKU: I'd like to make a note that they had due service through certified mail. They also had regular mail and the property was posted, so was the courthouse. Violation of Ordinances 04-41, as amended, Sections 1.04.01. Description of violation: Conversion. The illegal storage of vehicles on unimproved property. Location/address where violation exists: County address No. 98511. Folio No. 39836240005. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation: Marene Santilli, 224 Owl Court, Fremont, California, 94539. Date violation first observed: July 19th, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: Notice of Violation was sent certified mail on July 24th, 2006 and signed for on August 3rd, 2006. Date on by which violation to be corrected: August 24th, 2006. Date of reinspect ion: November 28th, 2006. Result of reinspection: Violation remained. At this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Thomas Keegan. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This case opened up as a complaint on July 19th, 2006. I made a site visit. I observed two boats, two vehicles stored on the property. Sent out the NOV, took pictures. I've been in contact with Mrs. Santilli up until about two months ago when it just failed. I e-mailed her, she didn't e-mail me back. She Page 68 February 23, 2007 lives in California. I received a phone call from her two days ago, myself and Supervisor Petrulli. She asked for a continuance. We told her not enough time. We did agree to ask the board to give her 30 days to remove the vehicles before any fines were issued, and she was more than happy with that. Her husband -- partner is coming down tomorrow to Naples to address the situation. MR. KELLY: Investigator Keegan, is there still a police investigation going? MR. KEEGAN: She says yes. MS. ARNOLD: Did we check with the Sheriffs Department? MR. KEEGAN: I just found out the police situation two days ago when she called -- that I got the case number two days ago, I should say. MS. PETRULLI: If I may, for the record, Supervisor Petrulli with Collier County. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. PETRULLI: I just wanted to clarify that the reason that we didn't continue it is because these were mailed out very early. She probably -- the mail probably got there the beginning of January. She signed for it January the 22nd. She had never notified us as to what was going on, that she was talking to the Sheriffs Department. We just found out all this when she called in that day. We asked why she hadn't kept in touch with us and she said that she didn't think that she needed to keep in touch with us. We asked her why she didn't send us a defense packet. She said that she really didn't pay attention to the notice of hearing and what it said. So that being said and with no contact from the respondent in the past, that since this has been going on since July of last year, we Page 69 ,....,.,- .-,.... '''''_'"-''~"'~'"'~_'''.'"'-_''''''"''''-"""""._~__,_.,,,,._",_',"0--' February 23, 2007 decided to go forward. Because she couldn't guarantee us any time that she could possibly be here. She said her husband was coming tomorrow, but we don't know whether he is or not. So that's why we decided to go forward. I just wanted to clarify why we're here today. Thank you. MR. KELLY: If I may. On September 29th, an e-mail was printed by Mr. Keegan in that the last correspondence from the respondent was, my representative flew to Florida to investigate the dumping on my property. We involved and met with the police on 9/8 at the property. The vehicles and boats cannot be touched until the police have finished their inspection. If there is an ongoing inspection, that may be a problem. So any time restraints that we put on our order may be in violation of something that's preexisting. MR. KEEGAN: If I can. She was, like I said, very happy with the 30 days. She said either way her partner would drag them off and bring them to the dump. One way or another, she said. She was happy with the 30 days. MR. KRAENBRING: How many vehicles are out there? MR. KEEGAN: Two cars, two boats. MR. KELLY: Jean, is there an issue with us passing an order telling them to remove what could be evidence, stolen property, perhaps, or illegal dumping? MS. RAWSON: Well, you don't know what the police order says. I suspect before we -- I mean, I guess if we order them to remove it and they can't because there's a police report or some sort of investigation going on, you'll find out real fast. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Would it behoove us to maybe continue this till next month? MS. RAWSON: Well, I don't know. Ask Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we can continue it to verify whether or Page 70 ~--,-~-,,~, ,...,. ,,-,_._._, ....."--.._-.--~.,"-""-~-., ._.~._-,,' February 23, 2007 not there is in fact a police investigation. I just -- I'm curious why she would agree to 30 days if there was one. MR. KEEGAN: When Ms. Petrulli and myself spoke to her two days ago, she did state that she has not heard back from the Sheriffs Department. MR. LEFEBVRE: There should be public record. According to this, on the 27th the police were there at the property. So there should be some police report. MS. ARNOLD: We didn't verify that. That was an e-mail from MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. But I'm saying within the next 30 days prior to our next meeting if we continue this, hopefully -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'd rather you guys get the clarification as to whether or not there's an ongoing issue with the Sheriffs Department before we make a ruling. If there's not, we can then make a ruling and have no problems. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. ARNOLD: Or you could make a ruling contingent upon that verification, and the order not be recorded if there is an ongoing investigation. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Which would you prefer, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: I think that we could find, make a determination and do a contingent order, unless your attorney has any objection to that. MS. RAWSON: I don't have any problem with that. In other words, we're going to order them to remove the vehicles within 30 days, unless there is a Sheriffs order prohibiting same. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. In that case, then I'll close the public hearing, and I'll move to the board and ask for a finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that a violation does exist. Page 71 -"--'--'-''"-''~-"~~----"--....._.,___."~..,._.,._..__,..,,.-".._._..O>>"_"'-'...._~:"'__...,_ _ February 23, 2007 MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Now I'd like to entertain a motion. Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I just -- one small part of this. You know, ifby chance -- I know the police were out there, but if there was a crime committed with maybe one of those vehicles or if there's a body in the trunk or something ridiculous like that, I'd hate to put anything against that and have those removed and maybe that evidence destroyed. MR. DEAN: Wouldn't the police department override anything we do? If there is a problem, they're going to come forth saying no, you can't do that? MS. RAWSON: I think what's going to happen is that the county is going to find out what the police and the Sheriffs Department has to say before they record this order. So if our order says unless there's a Collier County Sheriffs investigation and order prohibiting the same, they're going to find out that before they record the order, and just hold back until the Sheriff tells them to record the order. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So in other words, we can make an action, but because we're putting a contingency on there, nothing will take place if there is an investigation going on. Page 72 February 23, 2007 MR. KELLY: That sounds good. MR. DEAN: I concur. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Now, would somebody like to craft that motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have the -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I thought Jean had a good one. MR. PONTE: I did, too. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have the recommendation in writing at all that you can put up on the screen? MR. KEEGAN: Sure. MR. LEFEBVRE: And maybe we can tweak that a little bit. After number one, maybe where it says abated we can put some language where it states that if there is an ongoing investigation the vehicles cannot be moved due to the fact that there's an ongoing investigation, police investigation, maybe some kind of verbiage. MR. KELLY: How about simple language just stating that upon the approval from the Sheriffs Department, then 30 days upon that approval. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I don't know if I want approval from the Sheriffs Department to enforce our order. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: How about that the CEB order the respondent to pay all the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations unless there's an ongoing investigation, and then proceed. MS. ARNOLD: Unless there's an ongoing investigation which prohibits the same. MR. LEFEBVRE: Police investigation. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Right. And then go in your stipulations. MR. KELLY: If the investigation was then to close, let's say three months from now, the order doesn't cover the removal from that point forward, it just ceases it. And that's what I was trying to get. Page 73 February 23, 2007 Once they have finished their investigation and given us the authorization, then go ahead and remove it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Still waiting for someone to craft it. Go on, George. MR. PONTE: I'm not ready. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Anybody else? Give us a minute, we're writing things down. So I think -- MR. PONTE: I don't know, I think -- your point was that if there is -- what's wrong with just making it very simple and taking it as is and just saying after the word abated, removal to be governed by the Sheriff s Department approval? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I think Gerald took -- he didn't want to have to wait for the Sheriffs Department approval. He wanted to state if there was an ongoing investigation we weren't allowed to touch it, but once that investigation was finalized, not with approval of. MR. PONTE: I think the complication in crafting it is that what we're partially doing is saying to the county, hey, we can't do anything until you've checked with the Sheriffs Department. And although I agree, if we could move this away so we don't have to revisit it in 30 days, that would be the way to do it. But to do it any other way, we're telling the county to go check with the Sheriffs Department before we do anything. It's sort of a conundrum. MR. KELLY: I would like to put that responsibility on the respondent. I would like them to obtain the okay from the Sheriffs Department. I have something quickly drafted, if you want me to take a shot at it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that the respondent pay all operational costs of $342.26; obtain authorization from the Collier County Sheriffs Department to remove the vehicles. Upon approval, Page 74 ^"'__~_"'-'-'-""_""'_'''__O'''__''__'~___''_"_~'~M''~,_~_,_.." _'__'~"--"'-'."""""_""""'''';''__'''___ February 23, 2007 that they remove all vehicles from the unimproved property within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 a day be imposed until the violation is abated. MR. PONTE: I think that covers it. MR. KELLY: And then notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just speak to that? I'm concerned with leaving the respondent with the responsibility of contacting the Sheriffs Office, and they may not do it at all. And if we were to adopt that, we would have an open-ended order which we wouldn't be able to enforce. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I was going to say that. Because the only problem with saying that the respondent has to go to the Sheriffs Department, you don't give them a time frame in which they have to go to the Sheriffs Department and get the approval by. And if they don't get an approval, what happens? It's too open-ended. MR. KELLY: I agree. MS. ARNOLD: My recommendation to the board would be that you would leave it up to the county to verify if there is an ongoing investigation. I think that's something that's in the public record that we would be able to verify. And then if there is, then the time frame for removal would be extended until the investigation has been concluded. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Could we say that the CEB order the respondent to pay all the operational costs incurred in the prosecution of this case and abate all violations once the county has deemed this to be able to take effect due to no ongoing investigation? MR. LEFEBVRE: Or conclusion of ongoing. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Or conclusion of ongoing investigation. And proceed by, once that is determined, they must remove all vehicles. Would that work? Page 75 February 23, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: I think, you know, you all have actually said the motion already. Whereby, you know, remove the vehicles within 30 days unless there is an ongoing investigation which prohibits the same. I think that would cover if there's an ongoing investigation, the vehicle wouldn't be required to be removed in 30 days. If you wanted to add on there, you know, if the investigation's pending that they had 30 days after, you know, completion of that investigation -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I think that needs to be added, personally, because then we have closure. MR. KELLY: Would you like for me to amend or withdraw and then -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Why don't you amend. MR. KRAENBRING: Amend it. MR. DEAN: I just had a question. To me that's hearsay. What's in front of me is what I'd like to vote on. And then as a courtesy, you can send a copy of this to the county, and if they have some restrictions on whatever's on the lot or in the cars, they might tell us that, you know, they have an investigation. I'm sure they have a jurisdiction over what we do if it's a police thing. So to me, I vote on what I see. And to me that's all hearsay of whatever the police department's doing. I don't have anything in writing. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Mr. Dean, I think we asked our attorney's advice in regards to that issue, and she suggested that we put in the stipulation that it's based on if there's an ongoing investigation. MS. RAWSON: Well, I said unless there is an ongoing. You can do your order unless there's an ongoing investigation prohibiting the removal of the same so you're covered. MR. PONTE: You know what I think? One of the problems is we're -- the simple situation is complex because we're also trying to write in the solution and tell them what to do, what the respondent is Page 76 February 23, 2007 supposed to do, whether the police is supposed to get back. We're trying to anticipate too many things. I think Larry is right, do it straightforward and let's see what happens. We're trying to give direction when that's not the responsibility of this board. The responsibility of this board is to find that there is a violation and correct it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Well, I currently have a motion on the floor. MR. KELLY: Let me amend that motion. Part two of that motion was to contact the Collier County Sheriffs Department. I'd like to amend that and just go straight to removing all the vehicles from the unimproved property within 30 days of this hearing or a fine of $50 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated, unless such steps would be in violation of the current Collier County Sheriffs Department investigation, period. N ow we take the advice of our attorney and I think we make it pretty simple and straightforward. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second that motion. MR. KELLY: And then at the end shall -- I'm sorry, at the end shall I put if there is an investigation, then the order continues after the investigation has been completed? MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. KELLY: Very good. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Would you like to amend your second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes, I amend my second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do we also want the respondent to notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated? MR. KELLY: I did say that originally . Yes, that retains. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. In that case, I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Page 77 February 23, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. I believe we have now moved on to number eight, BCC versus Ronald and Barbara Grego. MS. MARKU: I'd like to ask if the respondents are present? For the record, the respondents are present. The respondent and the board were sent a package of evidence, and I'd like to enter the package of evidence as Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: May I hear a motion to accept package A? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinance 04-41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(2)(a), 10.02.06.(B)(2)(d)(ix), 2004-58, 16(2)(j). Description of violation: Erection of sign without proper county permits. Page 78 February 23, 2007 Location/address where violation exists: 4430 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Ronald and Barbara Grego, 4430 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 379271600009. Date violation first observed: November 6, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: December 12th, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: December 15th, 2006. Date of reinspect ion: January 3rd, 2007. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to the investigator, Kitchell Snow. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: For the record, Investigator Kitchell Snow. Let me first off by saying this violation has been abated. They complied. They did everything I asked them to do. It wasn't particularly done in a timely manner but they did do it. And I made a site visit yesterday and it met the county's satisfaction. However, I want on the record that a violation did exist. We don't want any repeat violations. I have photographs I would like to submit as evidence, if I may. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. May I have a motion to accept Packet B for the county in regards to evidence? MR. PONTE: Make a motion to accept. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 79 February 23, 2007 MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Grego, do you have any objections to the photo? MR. GREGO: No. MR. SNOW: This is just an example of -- just to give a short brief of what the property was. It was formerly a model home. The model home was sold. They erected a sign on residential property, which you can't do, it can't be permitted. They were asked to remove that. They eventually complied. I just don't want -- or the county doesn't want any repeat violations of this. The county recommends -- the cost of the case is 385.78. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does the respondent have any comments? MR. GREGO: No. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Any questions from the board? MR. KELLY: When you say the sign, you mean the lettering on the wall? MR. SNOW: No, sir. In a Four-A model home, a model home is usually given a conditional use. In that conditional use the signage is part of that. It's under that conditional use. And the whole wall is considered a sign. Not just the lettering, the whole wall in this particular case is considered a sign. Regardless of whether that was a sign or not, it can't be permitted. When you have an occupational license, there's no sign permitted, no signage at all, on or off the property. You can't have anything. And that's -- it can't be permitted. Can never be permitted. Page 80 February 23, 2007 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I have a question. Wasn't this originally where the mobile home -- or the model home had their signage originally? MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And so basically what they did was then once they bought the home they changed the signage to theirs. MR. SNOW: They made the assumption they could do that. And understand, they were out of town and they really didn't know what the code was. That's how it progressed from there. But again, they did abate. It looks very nice now, it complies with our codes. MS. ARNOLD: Investigator Snow, can you clarify for the board what you mean by a business? Because do they have a business currently, and what type of business is it? MR. SNOW: It is a landscape business. They have an occupational license for that to run a business out of their home. MS. ARNOLD: What type of occupational license? Is it a home occupational license? MR. SNOW: Yes, ma'am, it is a home occupational license. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Ifnot, then we'll close the public hearing and go to the board. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation did exist. MR. KRAENBRING: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. Page 81 ~..,-----,,..._,,,~,,..,,-,"---,~,--,_.,"._..- .,. February 23, 2007 CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. And recommendation for saying that it's been abated? We can't waive operational costs, so that would be operational costs would be incurred. Do I hear a motion? MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation to impose operational costs. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: Second. MR. KELLY: Real quick, Investigator Snow, did you want us to put some kind of language that they would not be able to reerect a sign? MR. SNOW: No, sir, I don't. I know that they won't do that. I just wanted to go on record so there's no repeat violation, that we, the county, is satisfied that if there is another violation that we can take the appropriate action. I know they won't. I've talked to them extensively and they're aware of our code now. MR. KELLY: And just because they weren't residents, it doesn't mean they didn't know. I mean, most people don't know about those codes. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So we have a motion on the floor to impose operational costs and we have a second. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? Page 82 February 23, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, thank you. MR. GREGO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The next case is number nine, BCC versus Fred Gaston and Russell Gaston. That's 2007-14. MS. MARKU: I would like to ask if the respondent is present? MR. GASTON: Yes, Russell Gaston. MS. MARKU: For the record, the respondent is present. The respondent and the board was sent a package of evidence, and I would like to enter that package of evidence as Exhibit A. MS. ARNOLD: We need a motion from the board to accept that packet. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I need a motion from the board to accept the packet A. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MS. MARKU: Violation of Ordinances 04-41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(2)(a), 10.02.06(B)(2)(d)(ix), 5.06.06(kk), 2004-58, 16(2)(j). Description of violation: Sign installed without proper permits and not properly maintained. Location/address where violation exists: 110 North First Street, Page 83 -"-->~--'~""'-~-------'"~-'~""""'-"""-'--"~'~'~---""-~""'",_...._"....,,_....."-.... February 23, 2007 Immokalee, Florida. Name and address of person in charge of violation location: Fred Gaston, 110 North First Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio No. 51190120001. Date violation first observed: August 31 st, 2006. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: September 29th, 2006. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: October 30th, 2006. Date of reinspect ion: December 20th, 2006. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. At this time I would like to turn the case over to Investigator Kitchell Snow. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Cherie' would you like to, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: Investigator Kitchell Snow for the record. Let me first start by saying the violation is abated. The sign no longer exists. My site visit yesterday revealed that it is down to the ground. It has been removed. I'm not going to get into how it was removed, that's a whole nother story. I would also like it to go on record that there was a violation on his property. I don't -- the county's concern in this is that there's no other signage on this property at all. We want to make sure that if any signage is erected, it goes through the proper permitting process. And we feel that a violation did exist on this property and we would like that ruling. I would like to submit these photographs as evidence. Let me talk to Mr. Gaston. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: If there's no disagreement from the respondent, I entertain a motion to accept that as Exhibit B for the county . MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. MR. PONTE: Second. Page 84 February 23, 2007 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. SNOW: The county also proposes operational costs in the amount of 364.02. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MR. SNOW: This is a photograph of the sign. And as you can see, it was in a state of disrepair. And I understand that was caused by the hurricane. Second photograph basically is the same thing, just a close-up of it. It needed to be removed and it was removed. So again, the violation was abated. I did make a site visit yesterday, it is down to the ground and the county is very happy about that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: If not, I'll close the case. MR. KELLY: I have one real-- Investigator Snow, is it required to get a demolition permit to take down a sign? MR. SNOW: It depends on what's involved with the sign, sir. If you have electrical, normally it is. In this case what happened, a vehicle happened to knock the sign down. I made a site visit. There were four feet left of the sign, and I don't know what damage was done. I went up yesterday and again I talked to Mr. Gaston, and they Page 85 February 23, 2007 removed the excess part of the sign and four feet. And again, we're just happy it's down and they complied. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: If there are no further questions, then I'll close the public hearing and move to motion from the board for finding of fact. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that a violation did exist. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And again, because we cannot abate operational costs, only the county can do that, I'll entertain a motion to impose operational costs. MR. KRAENBRING: Make a motion that we take the county's recommendation to impose operational costs in this case. MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Page 86 February 23, 2007 Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. The operational costs of 364.02. Thank you. MR. SNOW: Thank you very much. Have a good day. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Cherie', now I'll ask you, do you need a break? Let's go for a 10-minute break. 11 :54. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. At this time I'd like to reconvene this board. And we are moving on to old business. And there are no requests for reduction of fines, so we'll move to request for impositions of fines. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. The first item is Code Enforcement Board case 2006-41. Board of County Commissioners versus Lisa Hodge. This case was heard by the board on July 27th, 2006 and a finding of fact was entered into, and it is attached to the executive summary for your reVIew. The respondent has complied with the board's order and paid a portion of the operational costs that were at the time $349.29. So there's a balance of 299.29 that we're requesting to be imposed today. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Michelle, as you mentioned before, would you like to put a time frame as to when that needed to be paid by? MS. ARNOLD: Sure, that would be nice. MR. KELLY: I make a motion that we impose the operational costs of $299.29 to be paid within 30 days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those if in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 87 ,.,."O._.....,.....__.,_,,,."'...'""=,.~,.'.'..>_____""'_ .' ....__....._,_.. ~ .,,_"_, February 23, 2007 MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The next case? MS. ARNOLD: The next case is Case No. 2006-42. Board of County Commissioners versus Worthwhile Development. This case was heard by the code board on August 24th, 2006, and the order is attached to this summary for your review. The respondents have not complied with the board's order, but they have paid their operational costs in the amount of $535.85. Fines are being requested at this time to be imposed from September 29th, just to make a correction on the summary, 2006, through December 19th 2006, and continue to accrue until the violation's been abated at a rate of $200 per day. Well, the investigator's indicating that there was an affidavit of compliance provided. I don't have it. What we're asking for at least is the -- for the dates that are indicated through December 19th. Was there an affidavit after that date? MS. O'FARRELL: It was after December. But there is an affidavit of compliance. MS. ARNOLD: So the fines, we can still impose the fines through that date in the amount of 16,200. And we will file the affidavit of compliance and record the same. And then the fines will stop accruing on that particular date. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a motion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Are you -- the respondent is here. MR. ROYALL: Could I speak? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sure, please come forward. MS. ARNOLD: I'm sorry, the date of compliance is December Page 88 ---~~~-'~'.__.'~.'-~-'~-"'--"-",,-----" -. ......- '.----.....-...."""'.- February 23, 2007 19th, 2006. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. ROYALL: Actually, I'm here to request a reduction of the fine. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Joe, can I ask one question of you, please? What is your relationship to Worthwhile Development? MR. ROYALL: I manage the property. I'm the property management company for it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And you have authorization then to be here on their behalf? MR. ROYALL: I do. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Go ahead. MR. ROYALL: The -- this fine was imposed -- I'm sorry, a stipulation was imposed I believe on August 30th, 2006. On September 29th was the first date that we became aware that we were -- had not been in compliance in our Orlando office with the Collier County codes. Our site has a property manager, a regional manager and a landscaping contractor. Prior to those dates and before we even got to a stipulation, I had been in communication with them and had been assured that we were in compliance with codes. There were three separate issues: One, Collier County had requested that we extend our landscaping beyond the original CO, to remove foreign obj ects, and three, replace dead landscaping. The landscaping company there extended the landscaping; however, they did not extend the landscaping the way that Collier County had requested. They added a second row of hedges in front of the property instead of bringing in a row behind it. I spoke with the project manager that built the property and the project manager informed me that when the property was CO'd, the landscaping contractor and the permitting office had allowed that Page 89 February 23, 2007 exception not to hedge the back of the property. On September 29th, when I became aware of this, I came down and we put in the landscaping in the back of the property. In addition to that, there was a request to remove foreign obj ects, and this had been -- foreign species, I'm sorry. And this had been outstanding for some time with Collier County. The landscaping contractor did not understand that we were required to go into our right-of-way and clear to maintain the canal. Since September 29th, we've implemented a plan, we've removed and maintained the canal now as part of our property. The third issue is the dead plants that were being replaced, they were being replaced with substandard species, either smaller than the original ones. I believe they were being purchased in the same size container, but they were not being purchased of the same height. During this process, we've replaced approximately 4,500 plants on the property. The inspector, Inspector O'Farrell, came out to the property, taught us how to basically read a landscaping plan, which is something that our staff did not know how to do and the landscaping contractor was not able to sufficiently assist us with. And we have a policy and program in place to keep this maintained. MR. KRAENBRING: Madam Chair? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: I was just wondering, do we have to hear this as a separate issue, a reduction of fines if we find that there is a fine imposed and then he has to apply for the reduction? MR. LEFEBVRE: We're imposing the fines and then he comes back for reduction, correct? MS. RAWSON: You can do it together. It's the same thing you did earlier today in the Loyd case with Mr. Pires. You can combine them. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Did you have another question? Page 90 . "-~_._"",-","_."-....._- February 23, 2007 MR. LEFEBVRE: No, that was my question. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Anybody else have any questions? MS. O'FARRELL: Can I say something, please, as the investigator on the case? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. O'FARRELL: We have a date of compliance, but we need to find that document so that we know what the fines should be. MS. ARNOLD: We found it. MR. KELLY: Sir, you said there was about 4,500 plants that you had to replace? MR. ROYALL: Well, the original landscaping plan had a hedge going around the back and the sides of the property. That hedge was never installed when the property was built in 2001 or 2002. The proj ect manager informed me that the -- whoever inspected the property at that time allowed that to happen, that they had an agreement on it but they had no documentation. There may be documentation for it, but they didn't have it, you know, now in 2006 to prove that. In addition, over the course of several years many plants have been replaced that were replaced at a smaller height. Instead of the 24- inch height that was required, they may have been replaced with a 12-inch height. So we had to remove those plants and find plants that were suitable to meet code requirements. And it was about 4,500 plants total that were installed. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I have any other questions, comments? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yes. Can you put the affidavit on the screen, please? (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions, comments? Mr. Kelly? MR. KELLY: I just wanted to know if county felt that there was Page 91 February 23, 2007 any reason to reduce the fines in any way. MS. O'FARRELL: I believe that we should reduce the fines I think by 50 percent. Mr. Royall, when he finally became involved, what I think happened was the management level below him thought that they could handle the problem on their own and just failed to do so miserably. Although they kept in contact with me, over time it seemed like everything they tried to do, they did it wrong. They put it in the wrong place, they put in the wrong plant, they put in the wrong size. And finally, when I was able to find Mr. Royall and he became involved -- he's from Orlando, he's been coming down on probably a monthly basis to deal with the situation. And when he became involved, that's when things really started to roll and they came into compliance. They came into compliance within probably maybe three weeks or a month from him actually finding out that there was a problem. So I think that Mr. Royal, because of his efforts, the property has come into compliance. And I'm not sure that they should be punished because his lower level management felt they could take on a job that was too big for them. MR. ROYALL: She has walked the property twice with myself and our on-site staff. So everybody is very much up to date on where your codes stand, what is supposed to be there and how it's supposed to be maintained. Something -- up until that date, that was not the case. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And you got involved, you said, about three weeks? MS. O'FARRELL: I was involved from the beginning. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: He got involved and -- MS. O'FARRELL: Yeah, it was about-- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: -- within three weeks you were pretty Page 92 February 23, 2007 much in compliance? MS. O'FARRELL: It was about three weeks. Yeah, it seemed like three weeks to a month from the time that Mr. Royall became involved. And then he was calling me every other day, you know, trying to make sure he was doing the right thing and asking questions about it. MR. KELLY: So to recap, a property was improved, a building was built, it was CO'd without having the correct site development plan, vegetation planted. You discovered that after the fact. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, what happened was it was CO'd, and then for whatever reason it was allowed to begin to fail. And so it fell below what the standards of its approved site development plan were. MR. ROYALL: Well, there was two. There was -- the back hedges never existed on that back side. The interior, the replacements were substandard on it. So we had I think about 1,500 plants that we replaced that were substandard and not to code that we had not kept up the way we should. And then we had about 2,000 plants we added to the landscaping plan that were never there from the initial CO. MR. KELLY: To continue the recap, after that there was decent communication, although it wasn't executed correctly, and then when the respondent finally did become involved it was taken care of in an expeditious manner. MS. O'FARRELL: Yes. MR. ROYALL: This is all-- this property was built under a program called the low-income housing tax credits. If there's any way to have an extension on time periods for paying fines, that would be greatly appreciated. Our rents have been fixed since 2001. But as you know, things like insurance costs have continued to increase significantly. And we're still paying the cost of the landscaping replacement from last year. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. At this time I'm going to Page 93 February 23, 2007 close the public hearing and just go to the board. I think that since this gentleman has gotten into the picture they have more than adequately tried to comply. MS. ARNOLD: I think staff has a recommendation, if you want to hear it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. MS. O'FARRELL: A number that we come up with is the 30 days that it took him to comply after he was notified, at the $200 a day, which would give a fine of about $6,000 as a total fine, plus the operational costs. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That's about what I had. That's about where I was going. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'll entertain a motion from the board. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we take the county's recommendation and impose the operational costs of$535.85, and that we reduce the fine by $10,400, for a total of $6,000. MS. ARNOLD: The operational cost has been paid so you don't need to impose that. MR. KRAENBRING: I'm sorry. Great. It says that right here, doesn't it? Okay, no operational costs. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We didn't put in a time frame for them to pay this one, as we have in the past. MS. O'FARRELL: I would recommend that you give him -- I know that you can give 30 days, but I would recommend 90 days because of the fact that their insurance rates went up so high, and they are on a fixed income. It is a subsidized -- you know, one of the lower income properties in Naples. MR. KELLY: Since we're debating it, I don't even agree with the 6,000. And, you know, these properties are on a one-year budget system. Obviously he's in his fiscal year and he's probably not going to come into the kind of money we're talking about until next year. So Page 94 February 23, 2007 I would say if you are going to fine him 6,000, it been even more than that time frame. MS. ARNOLD: Could we look to Mr. Royall to address the payment requirements? MR. ROYALL: We took a credit facility to purchase the landscaping. I believe that we would have that paid off probably within two to four months, so we would be able to pay it after that period without any type of jeopardy. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. I have a motion on the floor. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. MR. KRAENBRING: Do we need to amend the motion, just amend the motion to allow for 90 days? Is everybody comfortable with that for payment, or -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I think he just indicated two to four months is what he's having to pay offnow, and after that-- MR. PONTE: 120 days. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: 120 days. MR. KRAENBRING: 120 days give him, okay. MR. LEFEBVRE: I amend my second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I have a motion on the floor for imposition of $6,000 to be paid within 120 days. It has been seconded. All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) Page 95 February 23, 2007 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. That's where we're at. Thank you. MS. ARNOLD: The next case is 2006-23, Board of County Commissioners versus Russell and Kaja Risteen. This case was heard by the board on August 24th, 2006. Mr. Risteen is present. There is compliance on this particular case, despite what your executive summary says. And he complied by -- he obtained a CO on January 2nd. The fines accrued, however, from September 29th, '06 through January 1 st, '07, which is a total of 98 days at a rate of $50 per day, which is $4,900 with operational costs of $478.49, for a total of $5,378.49. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Michelle, can you go over those dates again? Because I have fines of $50 per day for September 23rd through December 19th. MS. ARNOLD: Did I say September 29th? I did. It is September 23rd. From September 24th, actually, through January 1st. Okay, he obtained a CO on January 1st -- January 2nd. Can I ask you to hold off until I look up when he actually obtained his permit? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sure. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, I'll have to figure out the amounts. But the way I read your order, he had until September 23rd to obtain the building permit and 60 days thereafter to obtain a CO. He actually got a permit on September 2nd of'05, and it was issued that same day. So he had a permit before your order was put into place. And they actually extended the permit, the life of the permit, the building department did. But following your order, he had until November 23rd of '06 to get a CO. Is that correct? So the fine amount should be less than is stated here, because actually it was from September instead of from November of'06. Are you following me? He actually got his permit before your Page 96 February 23, 2007 order. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: He had his permit. So where he's not in compliance is from the November 23rd-- MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: -- until the CO. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So November 23rd to January -- MS. ARNOLD: 1st. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: -- 1st. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And let me figure out the number of days here. Okay, so it should have been 38 days of noncompliance, which is at a rate of$50 per day, $1,900. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Plus operational costs, correct? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. And the operational costs of $478.49. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Correct me if I'm wrong, 2,378.49? MS. ARNOLD: You are good. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Now, would you like to swear him in, Cherie' . (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. PETRULLI: For the record, Patti Petrulli, supervisor with Collier County Code Enforcement. The investigator that was handling this case, Mr. Ron Martindale, is out on sick leave at this time and so I'm just standing in with the history of the case, just in case you need any information. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Mr. Risteen? MR. RISTEEN: Okay, the reason why I didn't timely comply with this order was the fact that basically I lost my rights to a six-foot fence. So I went to the county and asked for a variance to see if a variance would work. Because we had discussed that in the first -- in the prior hearing. And went around and talked to people and I heard, Page 97 February 23, 2007 you know, $2,000 and I heard $1,000. And I said, well, I need to talk to people to see if I'm just throwing $1,000 in the trash. Because some people thought, yeah, you had a case, other people said no. So I just followed through. Now, talking to people, getting calls back, days went by. I called -- well, I got a list of people. But -- you know, starting with Bill Hammond. And I talked to Paula and I talked to -- well, Susan Murray finally came out to look at it. She was agreeing with what I was doing until she went to, I guess to the code and they said no, it's already a done deal. So meanwhile I said okay, everybody's against me on this thing, I'm not going to fight it. I'm not going to spend the money. But meanwhile I was getting the fines and it was then it clicked to me, okay, so I took the fence down. I lowered it. It complied. Bill Hammond said it was okay. They sent out somebody, they checked it. Everything's fine. I still have issues with it because everybody in my neighborhood can have a six-foot fence but me. I have two German Shepherds that can jump over a four-foot fence like that. I had to plant Arecas all down the fence to try to block that off, because that's all I can do. I had -- initially had a huge expense to have them raise my property up on my fill. If I had known that, you know, at the outset of the build of the house, it would have maybe helped. Because at the tail end of it I've got like thousands of dollars of fill dirt and retaining wall and special fence to build in just to find out I have to lower it after it was CO'd for a year and a half and it was permitted. Then my permit was revoked. And it's not causing anybody any trouble. But now I have an issue. What if my dogs get out? So I said, well, let me see if I can get a variance. I'll pay 1,000 bucks for a variance. And everybody was like, you're not going to get anywhere with this. So I just said okay, fine, I'll take it down. So now it's down. Page 98 February 23, 2007 But meanwhile with the conversations with people and trying to get the message out there and find out what's up with my no rights to a six - foot fence, a couple of months went by. But as soon as I got, you know, heads up, this isn't going to work, nothing's going to happen, I took it down. I mean, it was like the next day. I'm out there with my boys taking that fence down. So as soon as I -- you know, nothing's going to happen here, doesn't matter what you say, you're going to get nailed for it, I took it down. So fine, over. But to get fined for it after having the extra expense that nobody in the whole neighborhood had to go through. And then have to take the thing down after having it permitted and go to the expense of doing that too and now trying to get a couple grand out of me. It was five grand, now it's been reduced. But hey, I really would like you all to abate any fine, any cost. Because I've already paid for this thing like, I don't know, how much is a normal fence. It's like four times more than a normal fence. And I'm still -- I don't have my rights to a six-foot fence. I have a liability of my shepherds. So I don't know what to do about that. What am I going to do about that? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any comments or questions from the board? If not, I'm going to close the public hearing and -- MR. DEAN: I was just going to make one comment, I'm sorry. Wasn't this issue based on the height of the dirt? That was the problem, the dirt, right? Okay, now I remember the case. Okay. MR. RISTEEN: And both houses, the complainant's house is the same height as my driveway. As my garage. The difference is the way the codes were written 50 years ago. This is a 50-year old property, derelict property, I might add, that has nobody in it for a year and a half and it's in disrepair. Nobody could even rent in there Page 99 February 23, 2007 because it -- it was a little nicer than those trailers, but not a whole lot. And he hadn't maintained it. He put a new roof on it. But that's not this case. The deal is that my house and his house is about the same height. And they dropped the land down. Then I had to make my land up, which is opposite. And then I got nailed for the new code. And it should be, you know, new code should win. But not in this case. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. I'm going to close the public input at this point. Look to the board. MR. DEAN : Well, let me just say that I know this man's been through a lot, because we debated this for a while. I think it was a year and a half, or a year ago. And I know he's been through a lot. And I feel we should abate the fines. I know he's paid a lot of money for different things. Because of his property and the house next door, the dirt was the issue, the height of the dirt. And that's not all his problem, that's just -- so I'm wanting to abate the fines. MR. KRAENBRING: One of the things I remember about this case that bothered me was it wasn't that his fence was more than six feet, it was where do you measure it from. You measure it from one side -- I think we even actually had given him direction and say you can even move the fence back off of the property line, then you have the measurement from either side of the fence. So I have to agree, I think that he sort of got caught between a rock and a hard place on this. And I would have to agree with you on that abatement of fines. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to abate all fines and to have operational costs of $478.49 paid within 30 days. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. MR. PONTE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. Page 100 February 23, 2007 MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. Thank you. Next case is BCC versus Roberto Escareno and Maria D -- I'm going to skip the part of that word and say Lopez. MS. ARNOLD: And thank you, Chairman, for taking that off my hands. Okay, this is CEB Case 2004-44. The respondent is present in this particular -- for this particular proceedings. On September 26th -- on September 28th, 2006 the board entered into finding of fact, and it is attached for your review. The respondent has complied with the board's order and demolished the structure on or before November 8th, 2006. Staff at this time is just requesting that operational costs in the amount of $327.66 be imposed. . CHAIRMAN BARNETT: You're here. Do you have any comments or would you like to speak? MS. ARNOLD: I guess she doesn't have any comments. She just has her money order to pay for it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. As we are not allowed to reduce operational costs, I will move to a motion from the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to accept. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? Page 101 February 23, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, operational costs are to be paid. Next is BCC versus Jesus and Laura Perez. MS. ARNOLD: CEB Case No. 2006-45. And the board heard this case also on September 28th, 2006 and entered into a finding of fact and conclusion of law and order. And on this particular case, the respondent failed to timely obtain a building permit for the improvements in accordance with the board's order and fines accrued at a rate of $200 per day for a period between October 20th 2006 through October 25th, 2006 for a total fine of $1,000 plus operational costs of$349.59. But those have been paid on November 1 st, 2006. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Is the respondent here? MS. ARNOLD: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Is the respondent here? No? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay, they're not here. Move forward with the board's -- MR. LEFEBVRE: What's the amount of the fines again? MS. ARNOLD: $1,000. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: $2,000 a day for five days -- $200 a day for five days. MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, it says $1,400 right here in the order. Page 102 February 23, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: Yes, it's been since corrected. It's not -- it wasn't from October 19th, it was October 20th through October 25th, as opposed to what you had, the 19th through the 26th. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We have an amended order. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to approve. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The next one is BCC versus E.J. Properties, LLC, Leonardo D. Starke RA. MS. ARNOLD: And that was Case No. 2006-46. On August 24th, 2006 the board found that a violation did exist and entered into the attached order. Respondent has since complied with the board's order, and -- but failed to do that timely. And accrued fines at a rate of $250 per day from October 24th, 2006 through January 22nd, 2007. The fine totals is 22,500 with operational costs of $564.09, for a total fine to be imposed of $23,064.09. And a representative for E.J. Properties is present. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And your name, sir? MR. JAMES: Arthur Lee James. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And you're representing E.J. Properties? Page 103 February 23, 2007 MR. JAMES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: In what capacity? MR. JAMES: I'm his uncle. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you bring the mic. closer to you? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Would you like to explain to us -- MR. JAMES: Well, the fine occurred when we got the property. We personally -- it was a burnt unit on the end of the property. And Mr. Jeffhere, he came out and seen the burnt unit. And we have this lawyer in Miami, Starke, all the paperwork went to him. And he never respond back to us. So when it got to us, it was like in August. And then we got to find a contractor to go out there and do the work. By that time we was trying to find one. And we did find one. We pulled a permit for the roof, because we thought it was just the roof. But then I got back with Mr. Jeff, and he said no, I need the whole inside deal. So that's when I got to go find another general contractor, because I got a roofing contractor just to do the roof. Now I got to go find another contractor to pull for the inside permits. I think we pulled the permit December the 1 st for the inside to comply with the inside. And like I say, it all occurred because of Mr. Starke, he did never respond to us. We did -- he did go to the code officer, Ms. Carol there. That's when I really found out what was going on with the property. Because I went on another issue to talk with her about E.J. 's property. And she said no, you got a bigger issue over here. When I got involved with it, it was like in July and month of August, somewhere in that time. And I asked her what was the issue. And she said he's got 509 Doak Avenue. You need to take care of that Issue. And then Mr. Starke, he never respond to us about what was going on down there. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jeff, can you verify? Page 104 February 23, 2007 MR. LETOURNEAU: I can verify that we did deal with Mr. Starke in the beginning, because he was the registered agent for the E.J. Properties on the corporation's page. We got the green card back from him. I had a few phone conversations with him. His story does seems to shake out, because they never did anything, you know, and I was very surprised about that. And once Mr. James did get ahold of me, they did start going forward and taking care of this. MR. JAMES: As soon as I got in touch with Ms. Carol at the code office down in Immokalee, they told us, hey, you need to take care of this issue. We didn't know about the issue, because we purchased this property as like it was. And it was like a low income property. And it's in Immokalee right in a bad area. So what we did was I contacted them and they said, hey, straighten the issue up. So at the time I got to pull the permits. And I didn't delay none, I just went right to work with him. And everything I did something I corresponded with him personally, say Jeff, what do I need to do. And it went on from there like that, ma'am. MR. LETOURNEAU: The problem that I have, though, is they were still renting a couple of the units during this whole situation, and the building was, you know, not totally gutted but pretty much damaged by fire. MS. BARNETT: One end of it was burned? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. But the fire burnt the left side of it and then it went through the attic and the roof all the way to the other side, I believe. MR. JAMES: No, it never penetrated the roof to the other side. MR. LETOURNEAU: Well, I mean, there was smoke damage at least coming out the other end. MR. JAMES: What happened to the other side was, there was like a roof on top of a roof when they did it back in the days. And the Page 105 February 23, 2007 fire department busted the roof open. That's how the smoke went to the other side. But it never did come into the other side of the unit. And right now we didn't demolish the place, but we took the tenants and put them out because we wanted to clean it up. It's no longer a rental. We don't rent it or nothing. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: How long has it been vacant? MR. JAMES: About two months now. MR. DEAN: Is it habitable? MR. LETOURNEAU: Right now it needs just some tile, stuff like that. MR. JAMES: Right now, you know, I got permits for it. But I don't want to CO it yet, because if I CO it now and work on it, I'm going to get another fine for working without a permit. So I leave it like that. I just got to tile in the bathroom and things. MR. LETOURNEAU: The minimal housing violation has been abated. It's just some cosmetic stuff that needs to be taken care of right now. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Any other questions? MR. KRAENBRING: Is Mr. Starke still involved with your company? MR. JAMES: No, sir, he's not involved with us no more. MR. KRAENBRING: He was not an owner, he was just an agent? MR. JAMES: Yeah, that's it. MR. KRAENBRING: And you are the owner of the company? MR. JAMES: No, Edgerrins James own it. I'm not the owner, I just work for him. MS. ARNOLD: Edward (sic) James is -- he is his uncle. MR. KRAENBRING: Okay. MR. JAMES: And anything to do with E.J.'s property, you can ask the code, Ms. Carol, anybody, we jump right on it right away. I mean, she called me and said, hey, we need to take care of this issue. Page 106 February 23, 2007 I go right to it and take care. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Because he keeps referring to Ms. Sykora in the back, should we have her come forward and verify that? MR. JAMES: That's the one I deal with a lot in Immokalee. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I thought because we keep getting the reference, we should probably get her on record. MR. JAMES: That's my best reference I got. MR. LETOURNEAU: This case wasn't a complaint. It started out after Hurricane Wilma, we took initiative to go out there and, you know, take care of the damaged trailers and uninhabitable structures out there. And I came across this one. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, S-Y-K-OR-A. I'm a Collier County field supervisor. Yes, I have dealt with Mr. James. And I can testify that he does handle things as soon as I tell him anything. He's very good about it. He keeps up on things, contacts me constantly to give me updates. The problem was the registered agent did not advise him of any violations. And I did advise them to change the registered agent information on the corporation website. Because legally that's who we do send notices of violation to. But Mr. James is very good about working with me. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Carol, can you verify when he was first notified? MS. SYKORA: This wasn't my case, so I don't know about that. But I did know that there was a violation over there, and he was unaware of it. MS. ARNOLD: Can you tell when you told him about the violation? MS. SYKORA: I don't have any record of that, so I can't remember exactly when it was. But I can say that once he found out he did diligently try to correct it and kept, you know, in touch with Page 107 February 23, 2007 me, and, I believe, Jeff. MR. LETOURNEAU: According to my notes, it looks like I first spoke with him when he said, somewhere around in July of last year. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? MR. KELLY: Carol, right now they're looking at $22,000 in fines. What would be your recommendation for the board? MS. SYKORA: I would recommend a reduction in that, now that they understand the process of notification with a registered agent. And they are making steps to put a new registered agent in there. It's not my case, I can't speak for Jeff, but I would reduce that severely, because of that. I can attest that he's -- they really do help out. Not only in any issues with them, but I've had other issues with people out there, and they help them correct their -- I have one demolition going on now that Mr. James is assisting in, so -- because he knows the fellow can't afford a lot. So-- MR. KELLY: So generally the foundation does a terrific job in Immokalee helping out the folks. MS. SYKORA: Yes, they do. And they do comply when they know about it. But it's just this instance I believe he didn't really realize what was going on. And then he didn't understand what he had to correct, too, so that held it up also. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Jeff, do you have a recommendation? MS. ARNOLD: Can Mr. James tell us approximately how long it took him once he found out to get stuff fixed. MR. JAMES: Well, once I found out -- at first I felt it was the roof that was the problem. So I initially in September I fixed the roof. Okay, he's saying it was before October. The issue was we thought it was just the roof. So we got a permit for the roof from a roofing company . We did the roof. And that's when I contacted Jeff and I said Jeff, the roof is Page 108 February 23, 2007 finished. Then Jeff told me, he said, no, you need the do the inside, it's the whole compliance. You remember that? MR. LETOURNEAU: Correct. MR. JAMES: He said it was the whole compliance inside. So then that's when I had to obtain a building permit from a general contractor. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do you know when that was? MR. JAMES: I obtained it December the 1st, I think. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. Michelle, we're looking for some direction from the -- MS. ARNOLD: I'm looking up the permit information so we can kind of have some dates to go with. Did you obtain permits for the interior as well? MR. JAMES: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, he applied for the permit on October 27th, '06. And it was approved on September 20th of '06. And it was issued on 12/1 of'06. MR. LEFEBVRE: Can you repeat that again? Because you said October it was applied for. MS. ARNOLD: He applied for it and approved it in November, November 20th of '06. And then it was issued in December, on December 1. MR. LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KELLY: You said November 26th was when it was approved? MS. ARNOLD: It was approved November 20th. MR. KELLY: November 20th. And he was given 60 days. If you were to use that as a benchmark. And finally the site was inspected on the 22nd. MR. JAMES: It was approved December the 1st, wasn't it? MS. ARNOLD: It was issued. MR. JAMES: Issued December the 1st. Page 109 February 23, 2007 MS. ARNOLD: They approved it and then, you know -- it depends on when they pick it up, to be issued. So it was issued December 1 st. MR. KELLY: It's within the 60 days, or two days thereafter, depending on what date you look at it. Can I make a comment to the board? I think in this particular instance when you have somebody who's willing to give back to the community in such away, the foundation, we don't want to stand in the way of future contributions. And I'd hate to see this type of obstacle, you know, possibly discourage future giving. MR. KRAENBRING: I agree with that sentiment. The one thing about this is I know we take this on a case-by-case basis, but when we have one party who says that they didn't talk to the person responsible for repairing it, you can have somebody come by and say well, I just didn't know about it because I didn't get notified. I agree, I mean, I think that they complied and that we should probably abate the fine here, but boy, that really gets to me that you can just say well, I didn't know about it. MR. KELLY: The balance there is the investigator. If we have an investigator that says, well, I talked to them personally, it would be a different situation. But I like what Investigator Sykora has said. MR. KRAENBRING: No, I agree. But it's just again I don't like to set precedent. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: But in this case we have -- MR. KRAENBRING: Good testimony. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: -- testimony that stated that they -- as soon as they were told, they started handling it. MR. KRAENBRING: Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. MR. DEAN: Can we close public hearing? MR. LEFEBVRE: I thought we already did. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We did close the public hearing. Page 110 February 23, 2007 MR. DEAN: Okay, I'm sorry. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion that we abate all fines and the respondent pays operational costs in the amount of $564.09. MR. DEAN: Second the motion. MR. PONTE: Second the motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We are not allowed to waive the operational costs, so the operational of $564.09 is all that you owe. MR. JAMES: Thank you, ma'am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The next case is Board of County Commissioners versus Calexico. MS. ARNOLD: This case was 2006-47, and heard by the board on August 24th. This particular request for imposition of fines is actually a continuance from your last meeting. Remember there were several questions about when the permit was applied for, when it was issued and the like. We've since obtained that information. I would say, however, that the information that's in your executive summary is not correct. The -- they are in compliance and they actually complied on 12/13 of'06 instead of 12/4 of'06 as indicated. And fines accrued at a rate of $200 per day from September 23rd of '06 through 11 -- no, is that right -- yes, 11/22 of '06. Your order -- actually, it should go through the 13th, shouldn't it? Page 111 February 23, 2007 Certificate of occupancy. But we have the information with regards to the apply-by date. They applied for the permit on November 15th of'06. It was issued on November 22nd of '06, and they received the certificate of occupancy on December 13th of'06. And your order indicated that they should obtain permits, inspections and CO within 60 days -- no, I'm sorry, they should obtain permits within 30 days and inspections and CO within 60 days of issuance of that permit. So they had until January -- is that right? It was issued in November. So they had until January 22nd to obtain their co. So they're in compliance; is that correct? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: They obtained their permit within the 30-day limit, too. So they don't have any fines at all, it looks like. MS. ARNOLD: This case keeps confusing me. Okay, they had until September 23rd to obtain their permit. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: They got that, you said, on the-- MS. ARNOLD: And they got it not until November 22nd. So they had fines accruing through September 23rd of '06 through November 26th of'06 at a rate of$200 per day, because they failed to timely obtain the building permit. But they met the CO time frame. So the fines that are accruing are $11,800 at a rate of $200 per day. MR. LEFEBVRE: And that's the time frame between September 23rd and November 22nd, correct, just for the permit? MS. ARNOLD: Just for the permit. MR. KRAENBRING: So nothing is accruing at this point. MS. ARNOLD: No, they're in compliance. They've got their CO and everything else. And this particular case was stipulated, and the owner agreed to comply within the time period. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And they -- on this with the permit, they submitted the permit on the 22nd? Or is -- MR. KEEGAN: It was applied on the 15th of November, 2006. Page 112 February 23, 2007 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: So actually it's to obtain a permit within 30 days. So it would be until the 15th, because that's when they -- MR. LEFEBVRE: They submitted it. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: -- submitted it, right? MR. LEFEBVRE: They didn't obtain it. MS. ARNOLD: He didn't get it until the 22nd. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: You got me confused now too. So it's 11,800. MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And they've already paid their operational costs. MS. ARNOLD: Correct. MR. KELLY: Do we count the day that the violation was abated or when it was verified? Do we count that day in the fine? MS. ARNOLD: No, it should be the day after. MR. KELLY: So it would be 11 ,600? MS. ARNOLD: Correct. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Is the respondent here? MR. KEEGAN: No, ma'am. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Close the public hearing and ask for a motion from the board. MR. KELLY: I'd like to point out that they applied on 11/15 and it was issued on 11/22. It's a remarkable turnaround. So I don't believe it was county's fault in any way. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: No. Would anyone want to entertain a motion to impose the fine of $11,600? MR. KRAENBRING: In the absence of any other testimony from the respondent, I make a motion that we impose the fine as $11,600. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do I hear a second? Page 113 February 23, 2007 MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you. The next case is BCC versus Elinord Pierre. MS. ARNOLD: That's case No. 2006-53. This case was heard on August 24th, 2006. And I believe the respondent or representative is present. The respondent failed to timely comply with the board's order, and fines accrued at a rate of $100 per day per violation. The fines accrued for failure to obtain permits and inspections and certificate of completion from the period of October 23rd, 2006 through December 11 th, 2006, for a total of $4,900. Additionally, fines accrued for failure to reduce the number of occupants to five people from the period of September 23rd, 2006 through December 11 th, 2006, for a total of $7,900, for a total fine of $12,800, which will continue to accrue until the violation's abated. There's an additional cost of $370.39 for operational costs. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. We do have a representative. The respondent is here? Is the code enforcement officer here? MS. ARNOLD: Jeff Letourneau is the investigator. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Does not look like he's here. (Speaker was duly sworn.) Page 114 February 23, 2007 MR. ELINORD: My name is Pierre Elinord. P-I-E-R-R-E. Elinord, E-L-I-N-O-R-D. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Pierre, I'm sorry, I said your name backwards. I didn't realize the Elinord was your last name. Do you have any information that you would like to give to this board? MR. ELINORD: Yeah. Because I come in here, I don't know why. Because I buy the house since '91 -- '81. The house in '81. I think I don't do nothing to the house. But every day somebody call me here. I don't know why. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: In other words, you're saying you don't understand the proceeding? Do you not understand what happened? MR. ELINORD: No, I don't know. I don't understand what happened. MS. ARNOLD: Well, there was a stipulation entered into at the time of the hearing. You know, I don't know what to say. And the investigator -- I don't think Jeff was feeling well, because he's been out sick. And he probably didn't realize he still had proceedings. So he's not in the room. We're actually trying to get him on the phone. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do we want to continue this? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do you want to continue it? MR. KRAENBRING: Yeah, let's -- my sense of it is that maybe this gentleman could use some assistance with this. And that I think we should afford him due process and at least continue till next month. MS. ARNOLD: We do have someone that speaks Creole in the office, so we can have somebody translate for him. MR. KRAENBRING: That would be great. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I'd like to direct that, if that's okay. I'll take a motion from the board. MR. LEFEBVRE: Hold on. Either that or ifhe could bring a Page 115 February 23,2007 representative himself that could translate instead of -- make arrangements for that, hopefully. MR. PONTE: I have a question. This was a stipulation. Who signed on the stipulation? MS. ARNOLD: I can ask him if it's his signature. I have a copy of it. But the person that signed, the name signed was the name of the respondent. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: What's interesting, though, is he says his name is Pierre Elinord, and it's signed Elinord, Pierre. So I question. I would like to entertain a motion from someone on the board to continue this. MR. KRAENBRING: I make a motion that we continue this till next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: I second that. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: They're going to contact you. We're not going to hear your case until next month so you can get an understanding of what's going on, okay? MR. ELINORD: I don't want to come in here every day. Every day I leave my job, I come in here for nothing. I don't know. I want to know what can I do. I want to finish for that. Because I don't complete the house. I buy the house like that. But I don't do nothing Page 116 February 23, 2007 in the house -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Pierre, the problem is -- fortunately, I understand a little bit of French accent. THE COURT REPORTER: Then you can interpret then for me, if you would. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: You're saying that you don't understand the situation. We were trying to get you an interpreter so that we could explain it to you and have this hearing next month. Not every day, next month. However, you're saying you don't want to miss work. In light of that, you signed -- apparently there was a stipulation that was signed between you and the county that stated the things that you needed to do to come into compliance with Collier County code. You have not done those things, and so there is a fine that has been accumulating and growing because you're not complying with what you said you would do for the stipulation. Therefore, you need to come into compliance so that the fines, one, will stop. And then we have to determine what the fine is going to be. We're trying to give you some time to meet with the county and reunderstand what's going on. If you don't want us to do that, then we'll probably go ahead and impose the fine today. We would have to -- MR. DEAN: I think we already voted. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We voted, but he's requesting not to come back. MR. KRAENBRING: In no uncertain terms he needs an interpreter here. I know we had a case once before where someone acted as an interpreter, was a friend of the family and actually had an interest in the property or -- and then it became a problem later on. So I think when we have an interpreter, if the county provides it there may be a benefit that the guy's getting the straight story and not Page 11 7 February 23, 2007 CHAIRMAN BARNETT: We're going to move forward then. We will see you back here next month. I am sorry for the inconvenience, but it's the only fair thing for you at this time, as far as the board is concerned. They will get in touch with you. It will be March -- MR. DEAN: 22nd. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: -- 22nd. MR. PONTE: Who will provide the interpreter? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: The county. They have someone on staff. MS. ARNOLD: We have someone. MR. DEAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That's-- MR. LEFEBVRE: For the court reporter's -- I think at the start of this, before Cherie' started speaking, I think what he was trying to say is that he purchased the house the way it currently is. I think that's -- CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That's it. We'll see you next month. MR. LEFEBVRE: Do you have all his contact information? MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we received a phone number for him, and we'll get him on the phone. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Thank you, Michelle. Next case is Board of Collier County Commissioners versus Terry Hernandez and Brian Fults. MS. ARNOLD: This is Case No. 2006-66. Case was heard by the board on October 26th, 2006 and an order was entered into. The respondent in this particular case failed to timely comply with the board's order and fines have accrued at a rate of$250 per day for failure to obtain a demolition permit, inspections and the certificate of completion from the period of November 25th, 2006 through December 1, 2006, for a total of $1 ,500. The operational costs were paid by the respondent on November Page 118 February 23, 2007 2nd. And staff is requesting that the board impose a fine of $1 ,500. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Is the respondent here? Apparently not. MS. ARNOLD: No. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion. I make a motion to impose the fines in the amount of $1,500, and operational costs in the amount of344.51. MR. DEAN: Second. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, those have been paid. MR. PONTE: It's already been paid. MR. LEFEBVRE: I'm sorry. MR. PONTE: $1,500, period. MR. LEFEBVRE: $1,500. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. I have a motion and a second. All those in -- MR. KELLY: Just clarification. The fine includes the day that it was certified into compliance? And Michelle said on the previous case that we weren't including that day, which would reduce it $250. MS. ARNOLD: That is correct. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: That would be -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I amend my motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: It would be 1,250. MR. DEAN: $1,250, correct. MR. LEFEBVRE: I amend my motion to be $1,250. MS. ARNOLD: Actually, we'll reduce it more. He came into compliance on December 1 st, so we don't count that day either. So it's $1,000. MR. LEFEBVRE: I reamend my motion to $1,000. MR. DEAN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All right, we have a motion for the imposition of a thousand dollar fine. It has been seconded. All those in favor? Page 119 February 23, 2007 MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Apparently there's only one little piece of new business, and that was at the workshop you all had agreed to some new verbiage that we're going to be putting in place at the beginning of our agenda. I need to take a formal vote on that. That was to include the information about Robert's Rules of Order. And also I believe that they have the right to come back to us or something like that. MS. ARNOLD: I think it was also the discussion about someone speaking. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Right. And someone that wants to speak needs to inform us up front. So with that in mind, I'd like to have a motion to accept our new verbiage. MR. PONTE: Could we see it or hear it? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: I don't have it with me. Jean, do you have a copy of it? MS. RAWSON: No, I don't think I do. I think it's in my other notebook, because I think it was for next month. MS. ARNOLD: I didn't bring it with me either. It was the language that you all discussed at your last meeting and I think you all worked that over. Oh, somebody has it. MR. KRAENBRING: Maybe, I don't know. Hold on. Page 120 February 23, 2007 I think I have it. MS . RAWSON: Maybe the court reporter has it on -- I don't know, maybe she has the minutes from the last meeting. I bet she has the minutes right there on her computer from the workshop. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you want to give me a second to look through it? CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Sure. Oh, he found it. Hold on. It says notice, the respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for a case presentation unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearings are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. And that's the new verbiage that we all agreed upon. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Do we have a motion -- MR. DEAN: I'll motion to accept. MR. PONTE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 121 February 23, 2007 MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BARNETT: Okay. And the only other piece of information that I have is to remember that next month you need to decide who you want to have as your chair and vice chair, bring those forward, because we have elections. MS. ARNOLD: And that meeting as well, I'll have a revised version of your rules and regs to be accepted by the board. MR. KRAENBRING: Are we back to Thursdays here again next month? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. KRAENBRING: Just so we all get that in our minds. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: And I said I had until 1 :00. So it's 1 :03. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MR. DEAN: Motion to adjourn. MR. KRAENBRING: Seconded. CHAIRMAN BARNETT: All those in favor? MR. MORGAN: Aye. MR. PONTE: Aye. MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. KRAENBRING: Aye. CHAIRWOMAN BARNETT: Aye. Any opposed? (N 0 response.) ***** Page 122 February 23, 2007 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :03 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD SHERI BARNETT, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 123